Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Raipur

2017 (4) TMI 787 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waste - Char Fines/Lumps - product emerged in manufacturing process as residue - excisability/marketability - Held that: - Commissioner (A) in the appellant’s own case for the subsequent period has dropped the demand raised in respect of the identical product by following the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Haryana Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE Mysore [2015 (11) TMI 771 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - it was held that ‘char fines / lumps’ arise as a waste during the manufacture of Sponge Iron are not exci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reducing agent as well as for supplying heat. As combustion of coal is not allowed to be complete as a requirement of the manufacturing process, a residue namely Char Fines/Lumps is generated which fetches value on being sold. The appellants have not been paying duty on such char fines/lumps. The Order-in-Appeal has held that the said product is excisable goods specially in the wake of the amendment to clause (d) of Section 2 of Central Excise Act, 1994 in the form of an explanation that for th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing both the sides, duly represented by Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the Respondent we note that the issue is no more res integra. In the case of UOI Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 3 (SC) it was held that Cinder which is partly burnt coal, even though sold for a price is not excisable. Further, Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Laxmi Agro Indl. Consultants & Exporters Ltd. Vs. CCE Noida 2011 (274) ELT 176 (All) h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Excise Act. 4. In fact, we note that Commissioner (A) in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period has dropped the demand raised in respect of the identical product by following the Tribunal s decision in the case of Haryana Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE Mysore 2015 (325) ELT 400 (Tri Bang.). For better appreciation the relevant part from the said order of Commissioner (A) is reproduced below: 8. The appellant has contested the said confirmation of demand of central excise duty on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

manufacture of slag even after amendment in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The relevant paras of said decision are reproduced below: 5. After carefully considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that only difference in the facts of the present case and the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate is the addition of Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, w.e.f 10-5-2008. However, I find that the Board s Circular No. 904/24/2009-CX., dated 28-10-2009 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nario inasmuch as the manufacture of waste, refuse, scrap, etc., cannot be considered to be manufactured items in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. 5.1 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the amendment in Section 2(d) has not changed the scenario. Accordingly, the law declared in the above decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Bombay High Court would apply, read with the decisions of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court. The impugned orders are accordingly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Circular no. 1027/15/2016 dated 25.04.2016, has rescinded its earlier Circular no.904/24/2009 dated 28.10.2009, no. 941/02/2011 dated 14.02.2011 and instruction F.No.17/02/2009 dated 12.11.2014, which was regarding excisability of bagassee, aluminum / zinc dross. However, in para 4.2, the Board has clarified that Consequently, Bagassee, Dross and skimmings of non-ferrous metals or any such by-product or waste, which are non-excisable goods and are cleared for a consideration from the factory ne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version