Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Itc Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/751/2003-DB, E/750/2003-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 117/2003-CE dated 14/05/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-II ] M/s. ITC Limited Meenakunte Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, BANGALORE - 562157 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri N. Anand, Advocate K.S. RAVI SHANKAR # 152, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 26/04/2017 Date of Decision: 26/04/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20538-20539 / 2017 Per : V. PADMANABHAN The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various brands of cigarettes classifiable under chapter heading 2403 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute involved in both the appeals are regarding the dutiability of paper and aluminium waste generated during the manufacture and packing of cigarettes. Revenue was of the view that such wastes will be classifiable under 4702.90 as well as 7602.90 respectively. Duty was demanded on the above two items for different periods. Such demands were confirmed by the original authorities as well as by the Commissioner (A). Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the present appeals have been filed. Since the issue involved is identical in both the appeals, the same are decided through this common order.
2. With the above background, we heard Shri N. Anand, Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri N. Jagadish, AR for Revenue.
3. The learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals already stands decided by the Tribunal for earlier periods. Most recently, the issue was decided in Final Order No.20434/2016 dated 14.6.2016 wherein it was held that no excise duty will be leviable on the two articles.
4. Learned DR supported the impugned order.
5. We find that the issue of duty liability on paper waste and aluminium waste generated during the manufacture and packing of cigarettes already stand decided in favour of the appellant in several decisions of the Tribunal. We reproduce here the operative part of the Final Order No.20343/2016.
5. We have heard both sides and perused the records and also gone through the judgments cited at bar. Further, we find that with regard to the same issue, learned Commissioner for the subsequent period has decided the same issue in favour of the appellant by holding that the cigarette waste paper and aluminium foil are not subject to excise duty and the department has not filed appeal against the same. Moreover in all the judgments cited by the learned counsel supra, the issue has been squarely decided in favour of the appellant. Learned A.R. could not controvert the submission of the appellant by producing any judgments in favour of the Revenue. In view of the settled position, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and we set aside the same by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
6. Following the above decision, the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 26/04/2017.) V. PADMANABHAN TECHNICAL MEMBER S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4