2017 (4) TMI 787 - AT - Central Excise

Waste - Char Fines/Lumps - product emerged in manufacturing process as residue - excisability/marketability - Held that - Commissioner (A) in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period has dropped the demand raised in respect of the identical product by following the Tribunal s decision in the case of Haryana Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE Mysore 2015 (11) TMI 771 - CESTAT BANGALORE - it was held that char fines / lumps arise as a waste during the manufacture of Sponge Iron are not excisable and therefore, the confirmation of demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether "Char Fines/Lumps" generated during the manufacturing process of sponge iron are excisable goods liable for duty payment?

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the excisability of "Char Fines/Lumps" generated as a residue during the manufacturing process of sponge iron. The Appellants did not pay duty on these residues, leading to proceedings being initiated for the demand of duty along with interest and penalty. The Order-in-Appeal considered these residues as excisable goods, citing an amendment to the Central Excise Act that broadened the definition of goods to include any article capable of being bought and sold.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments to determine the excisability of such residues. The Tribunal highlighted the case law that established the principle that waste or by-products emerging during the manufacturing process are not necessarily excisable goods. They referenced specific cases like the one involving Cinder and the decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad regarding taxing final products rather than by-products or waste.

The Tribunal also noted a decision by the Commissioner (A) in a related case where the demand for duty on similar residues was dropped, aligning with the Tribunal's decision in another case. The Commissioner (A) emphasized that the emergence of waste during the manufacturing process does not amount to the manufacture of a new excisable product, especially after considering relevant amendments to the Central Excise Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing that goods must arise as a result of manufacture to be considered excisable. The Tribunal also highlighted a circular by the Board rescinding previous circulars regarding excisability of certain by-products or waste, clarifying the treatment of such non-excisable goods for credit purposes.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the "Char Fines/Lumps" generated during the manufacturing of sponge iron are not excisable goods and, therefore, the demand for central excise duty was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the Appellants. The Tribunal noted that the issue had attained finality at the Departmental level, and there was no justification for upholding the demand for duty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal reasoning behind determining the excisability of the residues generated during the manufacturing process of sponge iron, highlighting relevant case law and statutory provisions to arrive at a well-founded decision.