2016 (8) TMI 786 - AT - Central Excise

Excisability - Dolochar - Dolochar arises as a combination of Iron Ore, Dolomite and unburnt pieces of coal during the process of manufacture of Sponge Iron - Held that - the issue is no longer res-integra, as is decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the favour of appellant in the case of Union of India vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. 2003 (10) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of H.E.G. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of the product "Dolochar" under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Challenge against the demand for excise duty on "Dolochar."
3. Application of judicial precedent by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Sponge Iron and Ingot, faced a dispute regarding the excisability of "Dolochar," a product arising during the manufacturing process. The Revenue argued for its classification under Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff, attracting duty. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand for the period August 2006 to June 2007, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant contested the demand, citing settled judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal in similar cases. They argued that the issue of excisability of "Dolochar" had been conclusively settled in their favor by these judgments. The appellant criticized the Commissioner for not following the doctrine of judicial precedent by disregarding these authoritative decisions.

3. Upon reviewing the Supreme Court's judgment and the Tribunal's decision in a related case, the Appellate Tribunal found that the excisability of "Dolochar" had been definitively settled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had failed to consider these binding precedents, leading to the decision to allow the appeal filed by the appellant.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of excisability of "Dolochar" was no longer open to debate, as it had been resolved in previous authoritative judgments. Despite the clear guidance provided by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, the Commissioner had disregarded these decisions, prompting the Tribunal to overturn the decision and allow the appeal.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting that the excisability of "Dolochar" had been conclusively settled in favor of the appellant by previous judgments. The failure of the Commissioner to adhere to established judicial precedents led to the decision in favor of the appellant.