Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Central Pulp Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Central Pulp Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 25, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27689

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Central Pulp Mills

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(151)ELT704Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. a sum of rs. 1,56,592/-has been paid towards duty. the application has been filed for waiver of deposit of the remaining amount of duty of rs. 52.80 lakhs approx. and penalty of rs. 54.37 lakhs approx.3. the duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the commissioner that the waste that arises in the applicant's factory in the course of manufacture of paper referred to as "broke" is liable to duty under heading 4702 as pulp and paper waste. counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of this tribunal in sri venkatesa paper and boards ltd. and ors. v. cce - 2000 (90) ecr 526. in this decision, the tribunal has held that broke was not marketable and hence not excisable.4. the counsel for the applicant contends that the commissioner has not established the marketability of the broke that the applicant manufacture, merely says that because it was being used by the applicant it was marketable.5. the departmental representative echoes the view of the commissioner.however, the fact that the applicant used broke in its factory does not by itself establish (prima facie) its marketability. it was for the department to show that the broke was capable of being bought and sold and prima facie it is not done so. the fact that the tribunal in its earlier order has found the same commodity not to be marketable also goes in the applicant's favour.6. therefore, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Full Judgment

1. A sum of Rs. 1,56,592/-has been paid towards duty. The application has been filed for waiver of deposit of the remaining amount of duty of Rs. 52.80 lakhs approx. and penalty of Rs. 54.37 lakhs approx.

3. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the waste that arises in the applicant's factory in the course of manufacture of paper referred to as "broke" is liable to duty under Heading 4702 as pulp and paper waste. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE - 2000 (90) ECR 526. In this decision, the Tribunal has held that broke was not marketable and hence not excisable.

4. The counsel for the applicant contends that the Commissioner has not established the marketability of the broke that the applicant manufacture, merely says that because it was being used by the applicant it was marketable.

5. The departmental representative echoes the view of the Commissioner.

However, the fact that the applicant used broke in its factory does not by itself establish (prima facie) its marketability. It was for the department to show that the broke was capable of being bought and sold and prima facie it is not done so. The fact that the Tribunal in its earlier order has found the same commodity not to be marketable also goes in the applicant's favour.

6. Therefore, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial