9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 406 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of excise duty - goods cleared as spent solvents - It is the case of the Revenue in the SCN as confirmed by the Lower Authorities that the spent solvents which are distilled and purified in the appellant s premises are manufactured products and liable for excise duty - Held that - the issue is no more res integra, the decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. 2010 (10) TMI 175 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT has come to a conclusion which is in favour of the assessee. It was held in the case that the spent solvent is not a marketable product after process of manufacture. The law is settled which is in favour of the appellant i.e. spent solvents are not to be excisable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of excise duty on goods cleared as spent solvents. 2. Excisability of spent solvents after purification and distillation. 3. Applicability of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Demand of excise duty on goods cleared as spent solvents: The primary issue in these appeals concerns the demand of excise duty on goods cleared as spent solvents. The Revenue contended that the spent solvents, which are distilled and purified in the appellant's premises, are manufactured products and thus liable for excise duty. The provisions of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were invoked by the Revenue to substantiate their claim. 2. Excisability of spent solvents after purification and distillation: The Tribunal found that the issue of excisability of spent solvents is no longer res integra. The Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the appellant's own case (2010 (259) ELT 673 (AP)), had already concluded that spent solvents are not excisable. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, as reported in 2011 (269) ELT 147 (S.C.), thereby settling the law in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal reiterated that the spent solvents, after undergoing purification and distillation, do not become marketable goods and hence are not subject to excise duty. The Tribunal also referenced several other cases, including CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and CCE, Hyderabad v. Everest Organics Ltd., which supported the non-excisability of spent solvents. 3. Applicability of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's argument based on Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not tenable. The Tribunal emphasized that the excisability of a product determines the liability for excise duty. Since spent solvents are not considered excisable products, the question of levying excise duty does not arise. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Revenue had not appealed against earlier orders where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, further reinforcing the non-excisability of spent solvents. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The law, as settled by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and upheld by the Supreme Court, clearly indicates that spent solvents are not excisable. The appeals filed by the Revenue were found to be devoid of merits, and the Tribunal upheld the earlier decisions favoring the assessee.
|
