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.

Surya Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Surya Packaging vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 01, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35815

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

Surya Packaging

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(170)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of rs. 7,66,730/- confirmed on printed/imprinted laminated plastic films manufactured by the applicants and cleared in the year november 1993 to march 1994 on the ground that the benefit of exemption under notification 14/92-ce., dated 1-3-92 was not available as the inputs, bare duty paid plastic film, fell under heading 39.20 while the requirement of the notification was that the final product should be made out of plastic materials falling under chapters 39.01 to 39.15, arises out of the order of commissioner (appeals).2. we have heard both sides. the applicants made a strong prima facie case for waiver in view of the board's circular dated 25-6-1987 and 22-8-90, in which very same issue came up for consideration and it was clarified that as long as duty paid bare films, which hove gone into the manufacture of such lacquered/laminated/metallised plastic films can be proved to have been manufactured out of duty-paid plastic materials falling under heading nos. 39.01 to 39.15, such lacquered/laminated/metallised films made from such duty-paid bare plastic films can also be treated to have been manufactured out of duty paid plastic materials falling under heading nos. 39.01 to 39.15 and would be eligible for the concessional rate of duty as per notification nos. 259/86, dated 24-4-1986 or notification no. 53/88, dated 1-3-88.3. we also note that the applicants have contended before us that the plastic material out of which their plastic films were manufactured falls for clarification between chapter headings 39.01 to 39.15. in the light of the board's circular, prima facie case for waiver has been made. we therefore, dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,66,730/- confirmed on printed/imprinted laminated plastic films manufactured by the applicants and cleared in the year November 1993 to March 1994 on the ground that the benefit of exemption under Notification 14/92-CE., dated 1-3-92 was not available as the inputs, bare duty paid plastic film, fell under Heading 39.20 while the requirement of the Notification was that the final product should be made out of plastic materials falling under Chapters 39.01 to 39.15, arises out of the Order of Commissioner (Appeals).

2. We have heard both sides. The applicants made a strong prima facie case for waiver in view of the Board's Circular dated 25-6-1987 and 22-8-90, in which very same issue came up for consideration and it was clarified that as long as duty paid bare films, which hove gone into the manufacture of such lacquered/laminated/metallised plastic films can be proved to have been manufactured out of duty-paid plastic materials falling under Heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.15, such lacquered/laminated/metallised films made from such duty-paid bare plastic films can also be treated to have been manufactured out of duty paid plastic materials falling under Heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.15 and would be eligible for the concessional rate of duty as per Notification Nos. 259/86, dated 24-4-1986 or Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-88.

3. We also note that the applicants have contended before us that the plastic material out of which their plastic films were manufactured falls for clarification between Chapter Headings 39.01 to 39.15. In the light of the Board's Circular, prima facie case for waiver has been made. We therefore, dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial