Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Itc Ltd on 1 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.E/40064/2014, E/40667/2014, E/41295/2014, E/41711/2014, E/40838/2015
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.02 to 04/2013-(SLM) CUS. dt. 24.10.2013 and OIA No.01/2014-CUS dt. 6.2.2014, OIA No.02/2014-CUSTOMS (SLM) dt. 20.3.2014, OIA No.04/2014-CUSTOMS (SLM) dt. 13.5.2014 and OIA No.32/2015 dt.20.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem and Coimbatore]
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Salem & Coimbatore
Appellant
Versus
ITC Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A. Cletus, ADC (A.R) For the Appellant Shri Arun Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of hearing/decision : 1.12.2016 FINAL ORDER No.42363-42367/2016 All these five appeals are filed by department concerning the same issue. Therefore, they are being taken up together for hearing.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent (M/s.ITC Ltd.) had imported mixed waste paper at concessional rate of duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.2002 as superseded by Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dt. 17.3.2012 by executing end-use bond with the Customs authorities. The jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coonoor Division issued end-use certificate only for fibrous materials that were used in the manufacture of paper and paper boards, and not for non-fibrous material contained in the imported lot.
3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri A. Cletus, ADC, Ld. A.R on behalf of appellant-Revenue, submits that identical issue had been agitated by the respondent before CESTAT Chennai. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.41532/2015, pronounced on 7.10.2015 confirmed the demand of duty on the non-fibrous materials contained in the paper waste. He submitted that, the present appeals filed by department merit being decided on the same lines.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate Shri Arun Prasad, on behalf of the respondent, requests for some more time to produce additional documents since, according to him, non-fibrous material found in the waste or segregated from the waste is nothing but packing material.
5. Heard both sides and gone through the facts. I find that in a memo filed by the respondent dt. 22.9.2016, it is submitted that on an identical issue, they have preferred an appeal being C.A. No.1398/2016 before the Honble Supreme Court against the above mentioned order dt. 7.10.2015 of this Tribunal therein, Honble Supreme Court vide its order dt. 22.2.2016 was pleased to order notice to the department in the matter. It is therefore prayed that the present appeal may be kept in abeyance till final disposal by Honble Supreme Court. This fact was confirmed by Ld. Advocate for the respondent. At this point, Ld. A.R submitted that there is no stay granted by the Honble Supreme Court and that the matter can be decided by this Tribunal.
6. In the circumstances, as the identical issue of the same respondent has been agitated before the Honble Supreme Court though no stay has been granted, in the best traditions of judicial propriety, it would not be proper for this Tribunal to continue the proceedings and decide the matter. For these reasons, it is found appropriate to remand all the five appeals back to the original authority to decide the matter after the Honble Supreme Court delivers its judgement in the appeal filed by M/s.ITC Ltd. for the earlier period. In such de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority should also give an opportunity to the respondent to produce all evidence that they may wish to submit in support of their case and also take into account the submissions of Ld.A.R recorded herein above.
All the five appeals are remanded to Adjudicating Authority.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) gs 5