w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VERSUS SHIVALIK AGRO POLY PRODUCTS LTD.

    Civil Appeal 847-853 of 2000

    Decided On, 19 April 2005

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. VARIAVA
    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA

   



Judgment Text

( 1 ) THESE Appeals are against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal (in short "cegat"), New delhi, dated 29th September, 1999.



( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent manufactures, out of Polyethylene granules, Lay Flat Tubes as well as Protective covers/tarpaulins.


( 3 ) SOME of the Lay Flat Tubings are sold as a final product. Some are used as an input for manufacture of protective cover/tarpaulins. Even in cases where the Lay Rat Tubing is used as an input for protective cover/tarpaulins, the respondent follows different excise procedures for sales of protective covers/tarpaulins to two different parties. In respect of sales to Punjab state Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, the appellant take benefit of Notification No. 217/ 86C. E. , dated 2nd April, 1986 by paying excise duty on the Lay Flat tubings at the rate of 20% ad valorem and then claims exemption on the protective covers/tarpaulins. In respect of the other customer viz. , M/s. Indian Petro chemicals Corporation Limited the Respondent claims Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on Polyethylene Granules for the manufacture of Lay Flat Tubes. As they claim modvat credit the Respondent pays duty on the protective covers/tarpaulins (being the final product ).


( 4 ) THE Department issued 7 show cause notices By order dated 25th September, 1997 duty is levied on the footing that the Lay Rat tubings has not been shown as input in the classification list as well as in the declaration which has been filed. It also held that the respondent could not adopt two different methods for two different parties.


( 5 ) WE find that it has not been disputed that Lay Flat Tubes are input for protective covers/tarpaulins. The Respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/ 86C. E. , dated 2nd April, 1986. The mere fact that they did not show Lay Flat Tubes as input or that they choose to take Modvat credit on duty paid in respect of some material does not disenti

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tle them to claim benefit of the notification. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the Judgment of the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THE Appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
O R