AVERY DENNISON INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-IV
LAWS(CE)-2015-7-27
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 03,2015

Avery Dennison India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Pune -Iv Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHAHDARA STEEL ROLLING MILLS V. CCE,DELHI [REFERRED TO]
Bengal Rolling Mills LTD VS. CEGAT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.S.GARG,J - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Original No. PUN -EXCUS -004 -COM -10/14 -15, dated 24 -3 -2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune -IV, vide which the learned Commissioner as an adjudicating authority has rejected the application filed by the appellant for grant of permission to remove the goods for further processing under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for financial year 2015 -16. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of jumbo roll of self -adhesive paper falling under Tariff 39 & 48 of the CETA, 1985 at its Pune unit. It has got permission of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, to remove the goods from the factory of manufacturer without payment of excise duty from Pune unit to Bangalore unit from the financial year 2011 -12 till 2014 -15. The appellant has alleged that they had strictly adhered to the procedures and compliances in relation to clearance of goods to Bangalore unit in terms of the provisions of Rule 16C of the Rules and the said permission was renewed by the department on year to year basis.
(2.)The latest permission granted to the appellant was valid upto 31 -3 -2015. It is further alleged that for the year 2015 -16, the appellant filed application for extension of existing Rules 16C permission on 15 -12 -2014.
The respondent vide impugned order has rejected the appellant's application dated 15 -12 -2014 seeking further extension of the permission under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 mainly on the ground that the appellant's case cannot be considered to be falling under the category of "deserving case" as is prescribed under Board's Circular No. , dated 31 -1 -2007. Secondly, the respondent in the impugned order has given a finding that the appellant has violated the prescribed procedure and conditions of Rule 16C as well as Rule 12AA of the Rules. Now the appellant has challenged the impugned order before us.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 16C provides that the jurisdictional Commissioner of the Central Excise may permit the manufacturer to remove the goods from the factory of manufacturer to any other premises without payment of excise duty for carrying out processes not amounting to manufacture. After the processing, the goods needs to be sent back to the factory for further clearance on payment of excise duty or cleared from the processing unit on payment of excise duty. The relevant Rule 16C is extracted below:
"Rule 16C. Special procedure for removal of excisable goods for carrying out certain processes. The Commissioner of Central Excise may by special order and subject to such conditions as may be specified by him permit a manufacturer to remove excisable goods manufactured in his factory, without payment of duty, for carrying out tests or any other process not amounting to manufacture to any other premises whether or not registered and after carrying out such tests or any such other process may allow -

(a) bringing back such goods to the said factory without payment of duty for subsequent clearance for home consumption or export as the case may be or

(b) removal of such goods from the said other premises for home consumption on payment of duty leviable thereon or without payment of duty for export as the case may be."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.