2009 (3) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Demand- The respondents in all these cases are the manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Bulk Drug Intermediates. During the course of manufacture of Bulk Drugs waste Industrial solvent/Recovered solvents arise. The lower authorities during the scrutiny of the records found that the respondent have sold certain quantities of spent solvents without payment of duty and has cleared the same in the guise of waste Industrial solvents. Show cause notices were issued to respondent. At the appellate stage the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the various decisions of the Tribunal held in favour of the respondents/assessees. Hence these appeals are filed by-the Revenue. Held that- In our considered opinion the excisability in the product goods would decide the leviability of excise duty. If product spent solvents are considered as non-excisable the question of discharge of excise duty on them does not arise. Thus As the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion that the spent solvent in all these cases are not excisable products the ratio of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel covers the issue in favour of the assessee/respondent accordingly respectfully following the same we find that the issue being no more res integra the appeals filed by the Revenue are devoid of merits. All the appeals are rejected and the impugned orders are upheld.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal involving excisability of spent solvents sold by manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Bulk Drug Intermediates without payment of duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Common Issue:
The appeals involve manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Bulk Drug Intermediates who sold spent solvents without paying duty, leading to show cause notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the respondents, prompting the Revenue to file appeals.

2. Grounds Raised by the Revenue:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner erred in upholding the Order-in-Original by declaring spent solvents as non-excisable goods. They contended that the issue of excisability was not part of the show cause notice, and the Commissioner went beyond its scope.

3. Contentions of the Assessees:
The assessees claimed that the recovered solvents were declared as industrial waste solvents after being reused multiple times in manufacturing. They cited Chapter Note 10 of Ch. 29 of the CET Act, 1985, to support their classification of derivatives of Toluene and Methanol.

4. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
The JCDR argued that the goods were excisable, referencing a Tribunal decision on spent sulphuric acid. The Counsel for the respondent cited previous cases where spent solvents were deemed non-excisable, supporting the Commissioner's decision.

5. Tribunal's Decision and Reasoning:
The Tribunal found that previous judgments favored the respondents, concluding that spent solvents were not excisable products. They referenced a recent 2008 judgment and upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that excisability determined the liability for excise duty.

6. Final Ruling:
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Commissioner's decision that spent solvents were not excisable. The judgment aligned with previous decisions and upheld the orders in favor of the respondents.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the excisability of spent solvents in the mentioned appeals.