2010 (10) TMI 175 - HC - Central Excise

Spent solvent Excisabillity - It has been clearly brought out that the spent solvents had already been utilized in the factory and latter it had undergone further purification for reuse. The excess spent solvents were sold to the outsiders, as it had lost its value and therefore, what was sold was not new goods but only spent solvents which had undergone certain purification process. Such purification process of chemicals has been held to be not a process of manufacture as held in the case of S.D. Fine Chem, this issue has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. - department accepted the assessee s contention that at the relevant period the spent solvent is not a marketable product after process of manufacture Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the spent solvent in the manufacturing activity is liable to duty under the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether the department can take a contrary stand in subsequent cases after accepting a principle in an earlier case.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed by the Revenue against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent, a pharmaceutical company engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs, used various solvents in their process. The spent solvents were purified and reused, with excess sold to dealers at a nominal price. The jurisdictional Commissioner issued show cause notices proposing duty, interest, and penalty for clearing solvents without payment. The Commissioner initially levied duty, but the order was set aside. The subsequent order held that spent solvents were not excisable, a decision upheld by the CESTAT. The Revenue argued that purified spent solvent attracts duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the department's attempt to reagitate the excisability of spent solvents after accepting the principle in earlier cases. The Tribunal cited precedents stating that the department cannot take a different stand in subsequent cases after accepting principles laid down earlier. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle, emphasizing that the department cannot adopt a contrary position. The Tribunal considered the spent solvent's excisability in depth, concluding that it was not a marketable product post-manufacture. The department's acceptance of this contention precluded them from reagitating the issue based on established legal principles.

The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in legal positions and the binding nature of precedents, ultimately dismissing the appeals and upholding the decision that spent solvents were not excisable products.