Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore

MANU/CE/0436/2016

18.10.2016

Excise

Mere mentioning of product in the tariff is not sufficient to attract excise levy

Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of dry battery cell liable to central excise duty. They were availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as well as services. Revenue proceeded to demand duty on said scrap of paper under the heading 4707 as waste and scrap of paper or paper board. Original Authority as well as the first Appellate Authority confirmed the demand against the appellant. An equal amount of penalty also was imposed on the appellant.

Appellant is not engaged in manufacture of any paper or paper board. These items were their inputs procured after payment of Cenvat Credit duty. These inputs were put to intended use in appellant's factory. In such a situation, this is not tenable to hold that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of waste and scrap of paper.

In a similar dispute before Tribunal in case of WIMCO Ltd. vs. CCE Lucknow, it was observed that, no new product has come into existence. The scrap of paper cannot be considered as a product different from paper, waste arising out of paperboard is not a product different from paperboard. There is no special definition rendering emergence of such waste, scrap, paring as amounting to manufacture. Mere mentioning in the tariff is not sufficient to attract excise levy. By following above, Tribunal allowed Appeal filed by Appellant

Relevant

WIMCO Limited vs. CCE MANU/CE/0527/2008

Tags : Demand Penalty Confirmation

Share :