CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
P.C. Jain, S.S. KANG, JJ.
Super Chem Industries -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Meerut -Respondent
Final Order No. 477-478/98-C Appeal No. E/785/91-C & E/791/94-C, 477 of 1998, 478 of 1998, E/785 of 1991, E/791 of 1994
Decided On : 26-06-1998
J.S. Agarwal,H.K. Jain
Per P.C. Jain :
In these appeals the short question is whether the Spent Sulphuric Acid is liable to duty or not under tariff heading 3402.90. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant in appeal no. 1 and for the respondents in appeal no. 2 submits that the main question now is whether the said product Spent Sulphuric Acid can be treated as 'goods' and a 'manufactured product'. He submits that it has been held by the Tribunal in relation to this very product in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. Aureola Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 1998 (26) RLT 540 that the said product is not a result of manufacture and are not 'goods' as commonly known and understood in the trade and accordingly there is no duty liability on the said product. He submits that this is the latest judgement of the Tribunal relying on the well known propositions of law of the Apex Court. He therefore, prays for allowing his appeal in appeal no. 1 and dismissing the Revenue's appeal in appeal no. 2.
2. Opposing the contention, Ld. SDR Shri H.K. Jain for the Revenue submits that the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of DCW Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madurai 1995 (10) RLT 432 (T) = 1996 (81) ELT 381 is in favour of the Revenue.
3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. While, we agree with the Ld. SDR that judgement of the Tribunal in the case of DCW Ltd. (SUPRA) is in favour of the Revenue insofar as the product Spent Sulphuric Acid is concerned but in view of number of other judgements and the latest one being in the case of Aureola Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (SUPRA), we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Bench in Aureola Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (SUPRA). We further notice that one of the considerations for holding against the appellant in the case of DCW Ltd. by the Tribunal was the appellant agreeing to pay duty on the Spent Sulphuric Acid as conceded in their reply to the SCN. It was therefore basically a case of concession on the part of the appellant i.e. DCW Ltd. and is therefore not a good precedent at all. Consequently, we allow the appeal of Super Chemical Industries and dismiss the appeal of Revenue in the matter of M/s. Laxmi Agro Limited.