2008 (8) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Prasad and Savith V. Gopal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  All these appeals are by the Revenue. The first appeal is against the dropping of a demand under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority had demanded 8% of the price of 'pressmud' cleared by the respondents from their factory during the material period, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat 'pressmud' is not excisable has only to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly. The first appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 2. In the other two appeals, the challenge is against dropping of similar demand @ 8% of the sale proceeds of 'biocompost' which was prepared by mixing 'pressmud' with effluents from the respondents' distillery. It is not in dispute that 'biocompost' was s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding 31.01 and, therefore, on the facts of this case, Rule 57CC is applicable. We have already held that 'pressmud' is a waste material. This material was mixed with effluents from the distillery to get biocompost. An admixture of two waste materials is also a waste material. As rightly held by the lower appellate authority, 'biocompost' is only a waste material not exigible to duty of excise and, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X