2016 (9) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - clearance of waste solvent in the guise of bio-manure - amount has been appropriated against sanctioned rebate claim of the other appeals - Held that - the taxability / dutiability of the waste solvent has been decided in favour of the assessee in CCE v. Aurobindo Pharma 2016 (8) TMI 1017 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD . Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has in a speaking order categorically recorded that waste solvent that arises during the course of manufacturing of bulk drugs are not dutiable. Therefore, the impugned orders wherein the demand of duty is confirmed are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Since the impugned orders wherein the demand of duty liability has been set aside, appeals No. E/89375/13 and E/85614/15 consequently needs to be allowed and rebate amount appropriated against pending demand of appeals are to be held as incorrect. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging order appropriating rebate against sanctioned claim, duty liability on waste solvent cleared as bio-manure, interpretation of Central Excise Act provisions, compliance with show-cause notices, findings of lower authorities.

Analysis:
1. Appropriation of Rebate Claim:
- The appellant challenged the order appropriating rebate against sanctioned claim in appeals E/89375/13 and E/85614/15.

2. Duty Liability on Waste Solvent:
- The appellant, a bulk drug manufacturer, generated waste solvent during manufacturing, treated it as bio-manure, and cleared it without payment of duty.
- Revenue alleged duty liability on waste solvent cleared as bio-manure, leading to show-cause notices, upheld by lower authorities.
- Counsel argued that waste solvent clearance was not duty liable based on precedents like CCE v. Lee Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.
- Reference was made to the High Court judgment in Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India regarding duty demand under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Interpretation of Central Excise Act Provisions:
- The Revenue invoked Section 2(d) to demand duty on waste solvent, claiming it had value and consideration received.
- Counsel cited judgments to support non-leviability of duty on waste solvents generated during manufacturing.

4. Compliance with Show-Cause Notices:
- The show-cause notices alleged that waste solvents were cleared as bio-manure, which was disputed by the appellant.
- Lack of clarity on the item for which duty was demanded and compliance with manufacturing activity criteria under Section 2(f) were highlighted.

5. Findings of Lower Authorities:
- The lower authorities upheld duty demand on waste solvent cleared as bio-manure, which was challenged by the appellant.
- The Tribunal analyzed the factual matrix, finding discrepancies in the duty demand based on the nature of waste solvent clearance.

6. Judicial Precedents and Final Decision:
- The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Hidalgo Industries Ltd. case, emphasizing the necessity to satisfy specific tests before imposing duty.
- Considering the allegations in show-cause notices and precedents like Aurobindo Pharma case, the Tribunal held the demand of duty on waste solvent as bio-manure unsustainable.
- Consequently, the impugned orders confirming duty liability were set aside, and appeals E/89375/13 and E/85614/15 were allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of duty on waste solvent cleared as bio-manure, citing precedents and lack of compliance with show-cause notices. The judgment highlighted the importance of satisfying legal tests before imposing duty under the Central Excise Act, ultimately allowing the appeals and providing consequential relief.