Page 38 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

A140 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that in view of
decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rallis India Ltd. v. UOI
reported at 2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.), assessee was not required to pay amount
of 8%/10% on exempted waste and by product arising out of manufacture of
dutiable product. The Tribunal rejected department’s contention that an appeal
against this order has been filed by observing that no stay has been granted
against High Court’s Order.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. V. Sundareswaran, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. S. Jaikumar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

(1) Imported tyres cut into pieces, whether liable to CVD?
(2) Refund of CVD paid under protest on imported tyres
cut into pieces, whether admissible?
The Madras High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.
Vineet Kothari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar on 17-2-2020 issued
notice in the C.M.A. Nos. 413, 495, 432, 494, 420, 431, 424, 426, 421, 414, 417 & 422
of 2020 filed by Commissioner of Customs Sea, Chennai-I against the CESTAT
Final Order Nos. 41559-41623/2018, dated 21-5-2018 (Tinna Rubber and Infrastruc-
ture Ltd. v. Commissioner). While issuing the notice, the High Court passed the
following order :
“Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel sub-
mits that connected appeal in C.M.A. No. 2505 of 2019 between the same
parties is pending before this Court, in which questions of law were framed
on 30-7-2019, while admitting the appeal. She further submitted that in the
earlier CMA, M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran Associates have entered appearance
for the respondents.
2. Therefore, issue notice to the respondents. Copies of the memo-
randum of appeal along with the annexures may be supplied to M/s. Lak-
shmi Kumaran Associates. These appeals along with C.M.A. No. 2505 of
2019 and all other connected appeals may be posted for final hearing on
27-2-2020. The list of connected appeals shall be given to the Registry by
Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Learned Counsel for the Revenue.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Hon’ble
Delhi High Court’s order dated 3-5-2017 in assessee’s own case reported in 2017
(353) E.L.T. 161 (Del.) had held that no CVD is leviable on imported old and used
tyres cut into two-three pieces for ease of transportation as same remain waste
and similar products are not excisable in India inasmuch as the process would
not amount to manufacture. Following said decision, it was held that assessee
was eligible for refund of CVD paid under protest at time of import of said
goods.
REPRESENTED BY : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the Appellant.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  38