2002 (10) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... behalf of the appellants, submitted that waste high boiler is a waste generated in the reactor where acetylene gas and hydrochloric acid were reacted to form venyl chloride monomer. It is not a commodity, which is known in the market and the revenue has confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellants were selling the same. His submission is that mere sale of the waste cannot be made a ground to hold that waste is excisable goods. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.). 3.Ld. Counsel also submitted that the demand is time-barred, as the show cause notice was issued on 22-11-99 demanding duty for the period from 22-11- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... waste and scrap of aluminium. Hon'ble Supreme Court also had taken note of the arguments of the assessee that dross and skimmings of aluminium are specifically excluded from the scope of waste and scrap of aluminium because they are not even waste or scrap, therefore, these are not goods at all as understood in the commercial parlance. 7.In the present case, we find that though the name of the product is waste high boiler, but the chemical test report shows that it is an organic compound. The residual products of chemical or allied industry are specifically covered under chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff. 8.The waste high boiler is not parallel to dross and skimmings of aluminium, which are excluded even from the scope of waste and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mation to the revenue department, their intention to evade payment of duty is proved. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in the arguments of the appellants that extended period is not invokable in the present case. 11.From the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals), while reducing the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, enhanced the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,58,535/-. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules and revenue had not filed any appeal against the adjudication order. Therefore, in absence of any claim by the revenue for enhancement of penalty under Rule 173Q of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X