TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sides were asked whether the second appeal namely No. 2015/84-D could also be disposed of in the light of arguments furnished by them on the first appeal namely 237/84-D. Neither side had any objection to the aforesaid proposal. 2. Since a common question is involved in both the appeals, a common order is being issued. 3. Short question which falls for consideration in these cases is whether Fly ash produced during the course of burning of pulverised coal (Powdered coal) is liable to duty under Tariff Item 68 or not. 4. Contention of the learned Advocate from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board is that fly ash is not goods and as such cannot be treated as excisable. It is merely a waste product arising out of burning of pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash is also a residual waste and the burning of coal which leads to fly ash cannot be termed as a process of manufacture. Accordingly, fly ash should not be charged to excise duty. In support of his proposition, the learned Advocate relies strongly on a judgment of single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company v. A.K. Bandopadhyaya (1980 E.L.T. 146), it has been held therein as follows :- It may well be that dross and skimmings may be capable of fetching some sale price. For that matter any rubbish can be sold. But that is not the criterion. It cannot be said that dross and skimmings are the result of treatment, labour or manipulation whereby the end-product is dross and skimmings. They are merely the scu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctricity Board, that it has sold fly ash to consumer industry. In these facts and circumstances, there can be no two opinions, according to the learned SDR, on the fact of fly ash being marketable goods. As such, it is rightly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff as it existed during the relevant period. She has also relied upon the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works [1985 (20) E.L.T. 222]. 6. We have carefully considered the plea advanced from both sides and we are inclined to agree to the views advanced by the learned SDR. Her reliance placed on Supreme Court s judgment cited supra, is well founded. It has been held therein that: -Brass scrap is a by-product of the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
