Vst Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01-2014 dated 25/02/2014 passed by Commisioner Of Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-II( Appeal) ]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-2014 dated 25/02/2014 passed by Commisioner Of Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-II( Appeal) ]

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?

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

VST Industries Ltd. Azamabad HYDERABAD - 500020 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-ii L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Smt. L. Maithily, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri Mohammed Yousef, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 07/09/2015

Date of Decision: 07/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21839-21840 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order. The issue involved is as to whether the paper scrap and BOPP film scrap arising during the course of manufacturing of cigarettes can be held to be excisable or not.

2. The issue stands decided in the appellants own case reported as M/s. VST Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-II vide Final Order No.21046 to 21049/2015 dt. 30/04/2015. By following the precedent decisions in various judgments, it stands held that even though the said scrap is being sold by the appellant but the same cannot be held to be excisable and hence dutiable. For better appreciation, we reproduce paragraph two of the said decision.

2. Learned advocate draws our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Magnum Ventures Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2014 (303) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-Del.) as also in the case of Wimco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow [2008 (230) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Del.)]. In both the decisions, it is held that emergence of scrap of papers used for packing of goods cannot be held to be manufacture of waste paper and no duty demand can be made in respect of the same. In fact, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI vs. ITC Limited [2008 (221) E.L.T. 543 (Tri.-Kolkatta), the facts are more in consonance with the present case inasmuch as the assessee in that case also is a manufacturer of cigarettes and the issue involved was in respect of waste of papers arising during the manufacture of final product. The Tribunal observed that such waste, even though, it fetch some price in the market, cannot be held to be dutiable goods. Inasmuch as the facts in the present case are identical as was in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra), by following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow all the four appeals. Stay petitions also get disposed of.

3. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue fairly agrees that the issue stands covered by the above referred decision.

4. By following the above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.

3