TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. On verification the records, the officers came to the conclusion that the appellant had cleared 'Spent Propylene Gas' from their factory by pipeline to their neighbouring unit during the period 1-12-1995 to 12-3-1999 and directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,04,717/-. The appellant debited the said amount on 12-3-1999 but did lodge any protest while paying. The investigation was carried out by the authorities as regards the taxability of 'Spent Propylene Gas'. Pending the investigation, the appellant filed a refund claim on 8-9-1999 on the ground, that having debited the amount without any show cause notice or without any direction, and there being no further activity from the Revenue's side for the confirmation of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant filed a refund claim on 6-9-2005. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant has not preferred any appeal against the original rejection of the refund claim hence the issue has attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held likewise. Hence this appeal. 3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records; the order-in-original, show cause notice and other relied upon documents. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the refund claim to Rs. 1,04,717/- which he paid on 12-3-99 on the direction of the authorities on the ground that Spent Propylene Gas is an excisable item. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the curr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings as to the excisability of 'Spent Propylene Gas' have culminated in favour of the appellant by the order of the Tribunal, which reads as under "It is now well-settled that merely because waste material is put to some use, the same cannot be held to be excisable unless a requisite market for the same is shown by the revenue. In the present case major part of the gas is being flared up, another part is being burned in the appellants on boiler and it is only the surplus waste of gas which is being supplied through a pipeline to a neighbouring unit for putting the same to some use, which fact by itself will not make the said mixture of waste gas as excisable, In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
