TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue in all these appeals is same. The respective show cause notices and orders-in-original are mentioned in the Table below. Sr. No Appeal No. Party Name Show Cause Notice No. & Date Impugned order 1 Excise Appeal No. 50573 of 2024 Pr. Commissioner vs. Sunil Trivedi F.No. IV (16)30-67/Adj/Pith-I/17-18 dated 23.02.2018 OIO No. 09-12/COMMR/CE/UJN/2023-24 dated 29.12.2023 2 Excise Appeal No. 50574 of 2024 Pr. Commissioner vs. Sacos Indigo Pvt Ltd. F.No. IV (16)30-67/Adj/Pith-I/17-18 dated 23.02.2018 OIO No. 09-12/COMMR/CE/UJN/2023-24 dated 29.12.2023 3 Excise Appeal No. 50637 of 2024 Pr. Commissioner vs. Sacos Indigo Pvt Ltd. F. No. V(54)30-01/2015/Adj-I dated 15.12.2015 OIO No. 09-12/COMMR/CE/UJN/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal No. 50640 of 2024 Pr. Commissioner vs. Polylogic International Pvt Ltd. F.NO. V(39)15-09/2015/Adj-I dated 01.10.2015 OIO No. 23/COMMR/CE/UJN/2023-24 dated 29.12.2023 13 Excise Appeal No. 50641 of 2024 Pr. Commissioner vs. Utkarsh Trivedi F. No. V(39) 15-09/2015/Adj-I dated 01.10.2015 OIO No. 23/COMMR/CE/UJN/2023-24 dated 29.12.2023 2. The respondents have not appeared despite the service of notices. Learned authorized representative has mentioned that there has been a decision of this Tribunal on the similar issue and all these appeals can be decided based on the said decision. We have perused the record of appeal memo and observe as follows. 3. The facts of the case are that M/s Sacos Indigo Pvt Ltd. (M/s SIPL) is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....availment of CENVAT Credit, the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Regional Unit, Indore, investigated the matter. Searches were conducted and statements of concerned persons were recorded. 6. The department formed the opinion that respondents/ assessee have willfully mis-stated the facts before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods, manufactured by them, are Textile & Textile Articles, whereas the raw materials i.e. PP/HDPE/LLDPE which are granules of plastic hence are totally different from Textile & Textile Articles. The representative samples of the manufactured goods also got examined from Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. The CRCL has submitted their test report mentioning that P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter for awaiting present of respondents is deemed unreasonable. Hence, we proceed to decide all the appeals. 9. We have heard learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 10. Learned DR submitted, while rely upon the order of Review No. 08/2023-24 dated 29.12.2023, that from the test reports of the CRCL and the letter of M/s IOCL (a major supplier of the PP/HDPE/LLDPE granules to M/s NCIL & M/s Polylogic International Pvt. Ltd.), it is evident that the goods manufactured by the respondent are out of plastic grade granules of Polypropylene (PP) and High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) instead of being out of textile fibre, as claimed by them. The manufacturing operation undertaken by M/s NCIL as state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating authority, therefore, has made a hasty decision in concluding that the decision of the CESTAT Final Order dated 01.11.2022 would be applicable in the instant case. The adjudicating authority, without throwing any light on any of the relevant facts mentioned in the SCN, concluded to drop the proceedings raised by the SCN. 13. Having heard, it is observed that the original adjudicating authority has followed the Final Order of this Tribunal bearing no. 51048 of 2022 dated 01.11.2022 in the case of M/s Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore vs. Neo Corp International Ltd. i.e. are of the same respondent as in the present appeals wherein it was already been ruled that goods i.e. PP/HDPE/LLDPE, bags, sacks and FIBC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Neo Corp International Ltd. based on the above quoted earlier decisions has held as follows: "3........................ In view of the elaborate discussions on the question of classification of the products manufactured by the Noticee on the basis of which it has been held that the same merit classification under Chapter Heading 54, 63 and 60, I do not find it necessary to discuss the point raised by the Noticee regarding the value of clearance on which the duty demand has been proposed in the Show Cause Notice as also the other contentions of the Noticee in respect of imposition of penalty and issuance of Show Cause Notice" 16. The said decision stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as Commissioner of Customs, C....