2004 (12) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l No. 32/04 dated 26-2-2004. Since M/s. Excel Corrugated (P) Ltd. have appealed against both the Orders-in-Appeal, a single order is issued in respect of all the three appeals. 2. M/s. Excel Corrugated Boxes (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. Excel" in short) are engaged in the manufacture of corrugated paper boxes, an excisable commodity. The above commodity was under exemption till 1-3-2001. After 1-3-2001, the item was exempted up to Rs. 10 lakhs for the month of March 2001 and Rs. 1 Crore for the period from 1-4-2001 to 8-11-2001 in terms of Notification Nos. 6/2001 and 8/2001 both dated 1-3-2001. Investigations revealed that M/s. Excel received raw materials from M/s. Pepsi Cola Manufacturing Company (hereinafter referred to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he contention of the Revenue. 4. M/s. Excel contended that they received raw materials from M/s. Pepsi and others on job work basis for manufacture of corrugated paper boxes. Even though the above duty was leviable to excise from 1-3-2001, they were not aware of the changes. Therefore, they continued to clear the goods without payment of duty. M/s. Pepsi vide their letter dated 5-9-2001 had intimated to the jurisdictional authority that they were sending kraft paper to M/s. Excel for conversion into corrugated paper boxes on job work basis. They wanted the same to be treated as intimation under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. dated 25-3-1986. M/s. Pepsi sent a revised declaration to the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad with a request to treat ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeal has confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 56/2003 dated 18-12-2003 demanding duty of Rs. 7,64,418/- under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest under Section 11AB was also confirmed. 8. Learned SDR contended that the declaration filed by M/s. Excel cannot be given a retrospective effect. He urged that Order-in-Appeal is legal and proper and the same should be upheld. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. M/s. Excel had received raw materials from M/s. Pepsi. They converted the same into boxes and sent them back to M/s. Pepsi. This fact is not disputed. Moreover, the raw materials have been sent under Rule 57F(3) challans. Therefore, the responsibility to pay duty by giving an undertaking under Noti....