Asmaco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Asmaco Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 03, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26882

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/26882
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Dec 03, 2001
Subject: Other Taxes

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Other Taxes

Key legal issue: Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Asmaco Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 2,17,989/- and penalty of equivalent amount.2. applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. we have read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.virtually the sole basis for demanding duty is that, by virtue of note 7 to chapter 48 of the explanatory notes to the harmonized system of nomenclature, crape paper of a certain width is classifiable under heading 48.23 of the tariff and paper of another under that heading.applying the notes, it has been concluded that the slitting of crape paper amounts to manufacture. however this note is not present in the tariff. on the other hand, note 10(a) to the chapter provides that slitting of thermal paper does not amount to manufacture. this, prima facie , gives rise to the conclusion that slitting of any other paper does not amount to manufacture.3. accordingly we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2,17,989/- and penalty of equivalent amount.

2. Applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.

Virtually the sole basis for demanding duty is that, by virtue of note 7 to Chapter 48 of the Explanatory Notes to the harmonized System of Nomenclature, crape paper of a certain width is classifiable under heading 48.23 of the tariff and paper of another under that heading.

Applying the notes, it has been concluded that the slitting of crape paper amounts to manufacture. However this note is not present in the tariff. On the other hand, note 10(A) to the Chapter provides that slitting of thermal paper does not amount to manufacture. This, prima facie , gives rise to the conclusion that slitting of any other paper does not amount to manufacture.

3. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Asmaco Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Other Taxes