Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 323 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of duty - fly ash bricks falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 68159910 - Held that: - We note that admittedly the bricks cleared by the appellant contained more than 48% of fly ash by weight. The appellants in various communication to the jurisdictional officer categorically admitted that in general and common language they call ESP dust as ‘fly ash’. The percentage of content of such fly ash which is manufactured and cleared by them has also been provided by the appellants only. There various sales invoice of the impugned goods clearly mention them as ‘fly ash bricks’. Admittedly in the common trade parlance the product cleared by the appellant are nothing but fly ash bricks. Now to consider the appellant's claim regarding such fly ash not being generated by burning the fuel, we note that coal is being used by the appellant in the manufacture of sponge iron. During the process of manufacture, ash particles are generated which were collected in electrostatic precipitator and later used in the manufacture of bricks. These facts have not been disputed. As such we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the original authority regarding the excise duty liability on fly ash bricks. Cross examination of the chemical examiner - Held that: - no report of chemical examiner has been relied upon by the original authority. In fact it is recorded that the chemical examiner informed that it is not possible to ascertain percentage content of fly ash from the fly ash bricks. As such we find the submission of the appellant on this account is without merit. The original authority also denied the concessional duty rate to the fly ash on the ground that the condition mentioned in the Notification 5/2009-CE has not been fulfilled by the appellants. We note that the records to be maintained and the returns to be filed in this regard has not been complied with by the appellant and hence at this stage we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the original authority. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - inspite of engaged in the manufacture of fly ash bricks and marketing the same in the said name, the appellants did not file any return for the said product. Their submission that the extended period is not applicable in the present case is not tenable. Appeal rejected - duty levied - decided against assessee.
|