Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs M/S. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd on 2 September, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/1052/2006-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 11/2005 (VR) dated 26.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs VISAKHAPATNAM-II CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s) Versus M/s. ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD. CP UNIT, M.R.PALEM, NEAR KADIAM R.S, EAST GODAVARI DIST., (A.P) Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Anil Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant Mr. C. Saravanan & S. Thenmozhi, Advocates No.12, (Old No.22), V Block, 14th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 02/09/2015 Date of Decision: 02/09/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21824 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with a part of the impugned order of the Commissioner, Revenue has preferred the present appeal.
2. It is seen that vide his impugned order Commissioner classified the newsprint in reels manufactured by the appellant as falling under 4823.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as against the assessees claim of classification under 4801.00. However, he dropped the demand proceedings by following Section 11C of the Notification No.32/2005-CE (NT) dated 22.8.2005 along with dropping of the penal proceedings.
3. Revenue is against that part of the impugned order vide which Commissioner has extended the benefit of Section 11C of the Notification to the respondent on the ground that the newsprint in reels must be falling under 48.01 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in terms of the said Notification so as to extend the benefit to them. Inasmuch as the Commissioner has classified the goods under heading 4823.90, benefit of Notification stands wrongly extended to the respondents by the Commissioner.
4. It stands brought to our notice that a part of the Commissioners order holding the classification under heading 4823.90 was also put to challenge by the respondent, before the Tribunal and vide its Final Order No.1069/2006 dated 18.5.2006, the classification of Newsprint in reel form was held to be falling under heading 4801.00 and the respondents appeal was allowed. If that be so, the objection of the Revenue that the goods must fall under heading 4801.00 so as to earn the benefit of exemption Notification stands overruled by the Tribunals decision and is no longer available to them.
5. At this stage, learned DR brings to our notice that said order of the Tribunal stands appealed against by the Revenue before the Honble Supreme Court. However, he fairly agrees that there is no stay of operation of the Tribunals order. In such a scenario, we find that the only objection of the Department is as regards the classification of the goods in question, which is no longer available to them having been set aside by the Tribunals order passed on the appeal filed by the assessee and as such, we find no merits in the Revenues stand. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open court) ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3