Apr Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Apr Packaging Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 16, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42169

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/42169
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Chittaranjan, T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Mar 16, 2006
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Apr Packaging Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the appellants manufacture kraft paper and paperboard classified under subheading no 4804.90. the tariff rate of duty up to 29-2-2000 was 16% but they were availing exempted rate of 8% under notification no. 5/99 since they were using unconventional raw material. for clearances on the budget day 29-2-2000, they undertook to pay enhanced rate of duty, if any, under rule 224(2a) of the central excise rules, 1944. we find that the tariff rate of duty remained unchanged at 16%, notification 5/99 was replaced by notification no.6/2000 under which the effective rate was reduced to zero but the quantity was restricted to 210 mt for march 2000 and 3500 mt for the full financial year. we also find that the appellants have paid 8% duty for the budget day clearances on 29-2-2000.2. in view of the fact that there has been no increase in the duty rate, the duty demand made on the appellants in excess of 8% is not sustainable. hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The appellants manufacture kraft paper and paperboard classified under subheading No 4804.90. The tariff rate of duty up to 29-2-2000 was 16% but they were availing exempted rate of 8% under Notification No. 5/99 since they were using unconventional raw material. For clearances on the budget day 29-2-2000, they undertook to pay enhanced rate of duty, if any, under Rule 224(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that the tariff rate of duty remained unchanged at 16%, notification 5/99 was replaced by Notification No.6/2000 under which the effective rate was reduced to zero but the quantity was restricted to 210 MT for March 2000 and 3500 MT for the full financial year. We also find that the appellants have paid 8% duty for the budget day clearances on 29-2-2000.

2. In view of the fact that there has been no increase in the duty rate, the duty demand made on the appellants in excess of 8% is not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Apr Packaging Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T Chittaranjan, T Anjaneyulu