2019 (1) TMI 2021 - AT - Central Excise

Undervaluation of Waste Pickle Liquor (WPL) - pickling process i.e. process of removing impurities rust on the Wires manufactured by the Appellant - HELD THAT - This process of application of hydrochloric acid on the coil is called pickling process. After undertaking the pickling process the mixture of hydrochloric acid and the impurities and rust, is termed as WPL. Such WPL is nothing but waste which is not emerging by the process which amounts to manufacture. Therefore, WPL is not a manufactured good and hence not excisable good at all. Hence, no duty is liable to be paid for WPL. It is evident that WPL is not an excisable good and is only a waste generated during the manufacture of another product. In the instant matter also WPL emerges during the pickling process whereby hot rolled coils are passed through the hydrochloric acid bath/tank to remove the scales formed on the surface of such hot rolled coils. The Revenue sought to recover the amount of Rs.1,215/- from the Appellants since according to them 50% of sale proceeds received by the appellant from Indrox by way of credit note is the additional consideration received in terms of Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 2000. After going through Rule 6 ibid, for the purpose of its application the goods have to be excisable goods. Since it has already been held by the Tribunal in the matter of Indian Tube Co. Ltd. 1988 (8) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI that WPL is not an excisable good, which was later on affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore Valuation Rules, 2000 has no application on the facts of this case. That being so, the question of undervaluation or otherwise of WPL does not arise and as a result the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Undervaluation of Waste Pickle Liquor (WPL) during the pickling process.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the undervaluation of Waste Pickle Liquor (WPL) arising during the pickling process of removing impurities and rust from wires manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellants engaged in the manufacture of wires and availed Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services. They used hydrochloric acid for the pickling process, generating WPL during the process. The Appellants cleared WPL to independent buyers at Re.1 per ton and entered into an agreement for the regeneration of hydrochloric acid from WPL. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging undervaluation based on credit notes issued by the processing company. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld in the First Appeal.

The Tribunal analyzed whether WPL was a waste or a manufactured product. The Appellant argued that WPL was waste and not excisable goods, citing a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court dismissal. The Tribunal agreed that WPL was waste generated during the manufacturing process and not excisable goods. Therefore, the Valuation Rules did not apply, and the question of undervaluation did not arise. Consequently, the demand raised in the show cause notice was not sustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that WPL was not excisable goods and, therefore, the demand for undervaluation was not valid. The decision was based on the nature of WPL as waste generated during the manufacturing process, as established in previous legal precedents.