Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bharat Prelam Industries Ltd vs C.C.E. Bhopal on 19 October, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 28.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 19.10.2016 Appeal No. E/1700, 2710/2009-EX(DB) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 13, 217/BPL/2009 dated 20.01.2009 & 26.05.2009, respectively passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal] M/s. Bharat Prelam Industries Ltd. Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Bhopal ... Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri S.S. Dabar, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri Yogesh Aggarwal, A.R. for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran , Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO. 54259-54260/2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
These two appeals are against orders of Commissioner (A), Bhopal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plain and pre laminated particle board liable to Central Excise duty. They have availed exemption under notification number 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006. The said notification exempted bagasse board. The department contended that the product manufactured by the appellant are wood free plain or pre laminated particle or fiberboard, made from sugarcane bagasse or other agro waste which were covered by Sl. No. 87 of notification 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006. Proceedings were initiated against appellant to demand and recover central excise duty on the impugned goods on the above grounds. The original authorities confirmed the demands and imposed penalties on the appellant. On appeal the Commissioner (A) vide impugned orders rejected the assessees appeals.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they are manufacturing boards from sugarcane bagasse only. Decorative paper is fastened to these boards. The bagasse content is pre dominant and these boards are classifiable as bagasse boards eligible for exemption under notification 6/2006-CE. It was also submitted that the manufacturer of bagasse boards across the country are availing the exemption.
3. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record.
5. The original authority has recorded that the manufacturing process and list of raw materials used by the appellant has been verified by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent. The appellant is using sugarcane bagasse along with binder / base paper for manufacture of board. It is recorded that the board manufactured by assessee is 100% wood free particle board made from sugarcane bagasse. We find the lower authority denied the exemption to the appellant on the ground that the board manufactured by the assessee is plain and pre laminated particle board made from sugarcane bagasse and as such appellants are only entitled for concessional duty in terms of Sl. No. 87 of notification number 4/2006-CE.
6. We find that the lower authorities have chosen notification number 4/2006-CE only on the ground that the description of the impugned product is matching with the entry in the said notification. However, we note that there is no dispute that the appellant is manufacturing bagasse board which is covered by Sl. No. 82 of notification no. 6/2006. No reason has been recorded as to why the product manufactured by the appellant cannot be called as baggasse board. The specific name of the product as mentioned in the notification is covering the impugned goods. We find that the impugned goods are eligible to get exemption without any condition under these two notifications the appellant cannot be compelled to opt for a notification which has got higher duty liability. The Honble Supreme Court in various decisions held that the assessee can claim a notification which is more beneficial to them. Reference can be made to Supreme Court decision in the following cases:
(i) Share Medical Care Vs UOI-2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC).
(ii) Collector of Central Excise Baroda Vs. Indian Petro Chemicals 1997 (92) ELT 13 (SC)
(iii) HCL Ltd. Vs. CC New Delhi - 2001 (130) ELT 405 (SC).
7. Similar view has been held by the Tribunal in Arvind Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-III-2016 (334) ELT 146 (Tri-Ahmd.). In view of the above discussion and analysis we find no merit in the impugned orders. Accordingly the same are set aside. The appeals are allowed.
[Order Pronounced in the open court on 19.10.2016] (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member Bhanu 2 E/1700, 2710/2009-EX(DB)