TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s produced orders of the CEGAT and also the Trade Notice issued by the Collector, Bombay-I in support of their contention. The Trade Notice of the Collector, Bombay-I is in respect of Spent Earth. The CEGAT in their order No. 308/85, dated 18-4-1985 (Special Bench `C , New Delhi) have held that Spent Earth is not the result of manufacture because no one produces anything by degrading it or by substracting from its properties. It is a base material than the activated earth (i.e. baser than the substance activated earth) from which it comes, it cannot be stated that spent earth can be manufactured from activated earth. Similar views have been expressed by CEGAT, Special Bench `C , New Delhi in their Order No. 926/87-C in respect of spent nick ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be subjected to the same duty a second time because the activated earth is a duty paid product which has suffered duty under Item 68. 7. We have considered the above citations. However we find that excisability of spent earth was considered by this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 236 in this case this Tribunal had held that :- We have considered the appeal and the submissions of both sides. While it is true that `Spent Earth was held not to be excisable under the earstwhile Central Excise Tariff by a number of decisions of the Tribunal, the position has undergone a total change with the coming into force of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The latter has specific en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for decision in this appeal is excisability of the Spent Nickle Catalyst. Our attention is invited to Order No. 48/87-C, dated 9-1-1987, C.C.E., Patna v. Fertilizer Corporation, Order No. 322/87-C, dated 30-4-1987 Fertilizer Corporation of India v. C.C.E., Patna - [1987 (30) E.L.T 289] and Order No. 338-39/87-C, FCI v. C.C.E., Patna - [1987 (30) E.L.T. 507], where spent nickle catalyst is held not to be manufactured and the same not excisable. There does not appear any reason to differ from this decision. Accordingly we follow this decision in respect of spent nickle catalyst. In view of the above we have not deemed it necessary to consider the other points urged by the appellants in the written submissions like show cause notice being ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
