TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further held that same were merely waste and thus eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-CE. The Order confirming the demand even for the normal period is therefore not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/52742/2018 [DB] - A/53337/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 16-10-2018 - MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Tangri, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Mishra, DR ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA The appellant has challenged the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 148-149 dated 01.06.2018. The facts in brief relevant for the impugned adjudication are that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 3 lakhs. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is here before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Mr. Rahul Tangre, Ld CA for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Mishra, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the Show Cause Notices were duly replied by the appellant vide their letters dated 12.03.2014 and 09.02.2015 respectively duly contesting the allegations in both the Show Cause Notices. It was specifically submitted that the goods in question were waste and since the final goods i.e. refined oil was exempted vide Notification No. 3/2006-CE, the goods in question were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-CE and as such no duty was payable on clearance even of the disputed goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as exempted goods. Accordingly, the only point of dispute is: whether for the purpose of exemption Notification No. 89/95 CE dated 18.05.1995 which exempt wastage parings and scrap arising in course of manufacture of exempted goods falling within the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, the impugned by-products are to be treated as waste or not. 6. This issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in Ricela Health Foods Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh Allahabad 2016 (331) ELT 313 (Tri. Del.) wherein vide the interim Order No. 8-11/2018 dated 30.01.2018 it was held that the removal of unwanted materials resulting in products like gum, fatty acid and wax (as therein) cannot be called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note though the excisability of the product itself is seriously in dispute as per the opinion expressed by us, as above, these cannot be considered as anything other than waste and as such will be covered by the exemption Notification No. 89/95-CE. In a prior decision in the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. 2010 (249) ELT 70 (Tri. Bang.) has also held that the goods like gum, sludge, etc. are merely the waste. The said decision has been upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court in the Appeal cited as 2011 (274) ELT A16(S.C.). In the appellants own case as relied upon by the appellant, the relevant portion is as follows:- 4. We have considered the facts of the case and the appellants contention. The Hon ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
