Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ttk Textiles Ltd vs Cce, Madurai on 3 December, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/3447 & 3448/1998
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 154/98 (MDU) dated 20.10.1998, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, (Appeals), Trichy).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. TTK Textiles Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Madurai : Respondent
Appearance Smt. J. Sree Vidya, Adv., for the appellant Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 03.12.2009 Date of decision : 03.12.2009 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The above appeals were initially listed for hearing and disposed off on 12.09.05, vide Final Order No. 1227 & 1228/2005, setting aside the impugned order confirming a demand on waste and scrap of paper arising in the course of manufacturing of paper tubes and cones, in the light of the Tribunals decision in the case of Wimco Ltd. Vs. CCE 2002 (147) ELT 920 (Tri.-Del.). The Tribunals order was taken up in appeal by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide its order dated 13.07.2009, set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for better adjudication of the factual aspects. Tribunals order in Wimco Ltd.(supra) was also taken up by the Revenue before the apex Court and apex Court vide its order reported in 2007 (217) ELT 3 (S.C.), remitted the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as the Tribunal had not dealt with the factual scenario in detail. Post remand, the Wimco case was decided afresh by the Tribunal as seen from 2008 (230) ELT 106 (Tri.-Del.), holding that emergence of scrap, waste and paring from use of duty paid paper and paperboard is not as a result of manufacturing activity, such scrap/waste also cannot be considered as intermediate product or by product during the course of manufacture of any excisable goods and that no new product comes into existence and scrap of paper cannot be considered as a product different from paperboard. The Tribunal also held that merely mentioning in the tariff not sufficient to attract excise levy. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the apex Courts decision in the case of Kores India Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (174) ELT 7 (S.C.).
2. The goods in this case are the same in those in the Wimco case. The DR has not been able to bring to our notice that the Tribunals order in the case of Wimco Ltd., has been challenged by the Revenue in the apex Court. The ratio of the Wimco Ltd., decision is applicable in all fours, and we follow the same and set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
2