COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, Vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 27.4.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the applicability of the provisions of provisional Collection of Taxes Act, in respect of cotton waste which was cleared without payment of duty by the respondents during the period 16.3.95 to 23.3.95. The Additional Commissioner through Order -in -Original confirmed the duty demand of Rs.2,38,987/ - on the respondents and also imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/ - under Rule 173 Q on them by holding that the cotton soft waste was chargeable to duty at the rate of 12.5% and valoram with reference to Customs Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) on filing of appeal against that order of the Additional Commissioner, by the respondents, reversed the order on the simple ground that the provisions of Provisional Collection of Taxes Act were not attracted and the duty on the soft cotton waste was chargeable only from the date of enactment i.e. 16.3.95 and not the date of introduction, of the Finance Act, 1995.

(2.) The Revenue has come up in appeal, and challenged the validity f impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the respondents as 100% EOU, cleared the cotton soft waste in domestic tariff area during the period in question, without payment of duty when the duty was chargeable in terms of the Central Excise Act. Ld. SDR has reiterated the grounds of appeal during the course of argument, while assailing the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). He has contended that for the disputed period, the respondents were liable to the duty on cotton soft waste as entry pursuant to the dutiability of the soft cotton waste, was introduced for the first time in Chapter 52 of the CETA and the provisions of Provisional Collection of Taxes Act were attracted.

(3.) On the other hand, Id. Counsel for the respondents has only, while refuting this contention of the Id. SDR, placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pieco Electronics and Electricals vs. CCE Pune [1996 (87) ELT 577 (SC)].