2005 (4) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over excisability of waste of glass wool.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the excisability of the waste of glass wool. The appellants contested the duty imposed on them for the waste of glass wool, arguing that it was not excisable as it was not listed in any tariff heading. The counsel referred to previous remand orders directing examination of excisability in light of specific court decisions. The Tribunal had previously ruled against the appellants in a similar case, holding the waste to be excisable based on employee testimony. However, the appellants claimed that this ruling was not binding as it was based on employee evidence and not challenged in a higher forum. The Tribunal, in this appeal, emphasized that the previous judgment had finality as it was unchallenged, preventing the appellants from reasserting the non-excisability of the waste. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the appellants.

The key argument presented by the appellants was the non-excisability of the waste of glass wool, which they claimed was not specified in any tariff heading. The counsel also challenged the binding nature of a previous Tribunal judgment against the appellants, arguing that it was based on employee testimony and had not been challenged in a higher forum. However, the Tribunal reiterated that the previous judgment had finality as it remained unchallenged, preventing the appellants from contesting the excisability of the waste in the current proceedings. The Tribunal found no illegality in the impugned order and upheld it, ultimately dismissing the appeal of the appellants.

The crux of the issue revolved around the excisability of the waste of glass wool. The appellants disputed the duty imposed on them for this waste, contending that it was not excisable as it was not explicitly mentioned in any tariff heading. Despite the appellants' arguments, the Tribunal emphasized the finality of a previous judgment against them, which had ruled the waste to be excisable based on employee testimony. This previous ruling prevented the appellants from challenging the excisability of the waste in the current appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal of the appellants, concluding that the waste of glass wool was indeed excisable based on the previous judgment's findings.