Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Wimco Ltd on 28 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/401/2002
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.27/02 (M-1) & 1/02 (M-1)(D) dated 14.05.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)
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 Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant
Versus
M/s.WIMCO Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance :
Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR None For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 28.05.2009 Date of decision : 28.05.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the appeal of the Revenue is the excisability of scrap waste and parings arising from use of duty paid paper and paper board in the factory of the respondents.
2. Although the respondents have sought an adjournment, we find that it is not necessary to accede to the request for the reason that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue by Tribunals order in their own case reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 106. The issue of excisability of these items was earlier decided in favour of the assessees by the Tribunals order reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T.920 (Tri.-Del.); Revenue challenged this order before the apex court which remanded the case to Tribunal and vide the order reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T.106, the Tribunal has once again held that emergence of scrap waste and parings from use of duty-paid paper and paper board is not a result of activity of manufacture and, therefore, is not liable to excise duty. Following the ratio of the above orders, we uphold the impugned order by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the 2002 (147) E.L.T. 920 (Tri.-Del.) order of the Tribunal in the assessees own case and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT
ksr
28-05-2009
??
??
??
??
1
3