Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Ppc Business & Products Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-I on 9 June, 2008

        

 

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK-II, R.K. PURAM, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI, COURT NO. III

 Excise  Appeal No. 3996 of 2004

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 107-CE/DLH/2004 dated 23.06.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi]

Date of hearing/decision:  09.06.2008	


Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member [Technical]
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member [Judicial]


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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
	
4	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?	


M/s PPC Business & Products  Pvt.  Ltd.,			        Appellant
 [Rep. by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate]

Vs.
CCE, Delhi-I							                Respondent 
[Rep. by Mr. Deepak Garg, SDR]


					O R D E R

Per: P.K. Das:

The issue involved in this case is as to whether Base Turpine generated during the process of manufacture of Perfumery Compound is excisable goods. The brief facts of the case, as per record are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Perfumery Compound classifiable under sub-heading 3302.10 and 3302.90 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been alleged that the appellant had manufactured and cleared Base Turpine, an excisable commodity classifiable under sub-heading No. 3302.90, generated during the manufacture of Perfumery Compound without payment of Central Excise duty.
The appellant deposited the duty before issue of the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and appropriated the same amount as deposited by the appellant voluntarily before issue of the show cause notice. He also imposed penalty equal amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the adjudication order that the appellant in their written reply to show cause notice contested the demand of duty. But during the course of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority they did not contest the duty liability and requested for a lenient view as there was no malafide. In view of the submission of the appellant and they have paid the duty before issue of the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority observed that the charges alleged in show cause notice stand proved. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant changed their stand and contested the demand of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Base Turpine is a waste emerged during the course of manufacture of Mixer of Odoriferous substances. He further submits that the said product has no marketability and fetched a paltry price. He relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal and the Honble Supreme Court.

4. We find that the dispute relates to excisability of Base Turpine and the appellant had not disputed the excisability before the adjudicating authority. It is well settled law that the classification of the goods would be decided by the adjudicating authority on the basis of evidence. So, the submission of the learned Advocate that the Base Turpine is not excisable goods and it has no marketability are required to be examined by the adjudicating authority. Hence, we set-aside the adjudication order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the submission of the learned Advocate and to pass order in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court].

[M. Veeraiyan] Member [Technical] [P.K. Das] Member [Judicial] [Pant]