TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder 2701.00. Further, various co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have also held that dolochar arising in the course of sponge iron manufacture cannot be said to be manufactured product but is a waste item on which duty demand cannot be sustained. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The clarification provided by the Central Excise Department vide letter dated 26.08.2015 held that merely because dolochar is sold it cannot be said to be excisable. In view thereof, there cannot be any suppression. Therefore, the case of the appellants succeeds both on merits and on limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.79415 of 2018, 79425 of 2018, 79711 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 76894-76896/2019 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssifiable under chapter heading 2619 and is marketable since the assessee has fetched consideration on which the central excise duty demand has been raised. On the basis of said observations, he allowed the appeal of the Revenue and confirmed the duty demand by invoking extended period of limitation, demanded interest and imposed penalty equivalent to the duty amount. The appellants have, however, reversed CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, pursuant to the amendment in the definition of term exempted goods vide Notf. 6/2015-CE(NT), in terms of which the said exempted goods would also include non excisable goods. 3. Sri Rajeev Agarwal, learned Chartered Accountant, appeared for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016] G.R. Sponge Power Ltd vs. CCE, Raipur [Final Order dated 20.06.2016] Jai Balaji Industries Ltd vs. CCE, Raipur [Final Order dated 19.12.2016] MSP Steel Power Ld vs. CCE, Raipur [2017- TIOL-CESTATDEL] CCE vs. Bellary Steels Alloys Ltd. [2017 (358) ELT 1046 (Tri-Bang)] Bellary Steels Alloys Ltd. vs. CCE [2006 (199) ELT 808 (Tri- Bang)] HEG Ltd vs. CCE, Bhopal [2004 taxmann.com 194 (New Delhi CESTAT)] 4(iii). He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Reactive Metals of India Pvt Ltd [2018 (8) GSTL 194 (Tri-Hyd)] vide its Final Order dated 06.09.2017 has taken a view that dolochar is classifiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation. 5. On the contrary, the learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue supported the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Reactive Metals of India (Supra) has already held that dolachar is classifiable under heading 2619 and therefore, the duty demand is rightly confirmed against the appellants. It is his submission that the appellants have fetched huge recovery for clearance of dolachar and hence the same is marketable on which duty is liable to be paid. He prayed that the appeal filed by assessee does not have any merit and is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product is akin to coal and accordingly is to be classified under 2701.00. We find no reason to interfere with such a finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the same is upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. We further note that the various co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have also held that dolochar arising in the course of sponge iron manufacture cannot be said to be manufactured product but is a waste item on which duty demand cannot be sustained. The Tribunal in Heg Ltd s case (Supra) vide Final Order dated 19.02.2016 while referring to the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd 2003 (158) ELT 3 (SC) has held that char / dolachar is not liable to central ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Andhra Pradesh High Court (FB) in the case of B R Constrictions (supra), a decision so rendered in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a Court or co-ordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it lacks binding precedence value. 9. Even after this decision was pointed out, learned Departmental Representative does not give up. His next plea is that now that divergent views have been expressed by coordinate benches, the matter should at least be referred to a Special Bench. We see no legally sustainable merits in this plea either. Once we hold that Lovelesh Jain decision (supra) by the coordinate bench cannot be accorded binding precedence value, the binding judicial precedents that we have before us i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
