1996 (4) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Contesting the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) regarding excisability and classification of spent fuller earth and spent nickel catalyst.
2. Determining whether spent fuller earth and spent nickel catalyst are excisable and their correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The appeal contested the Collector (Appeals) order regarding the excisability and classification of spent fuller earth and spent nickel catalyst. The Collector (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the appellants based on judgments of the CEGAT and Trade Notice issued by the Collector, Bombay-I, stating that spent earth is not the result of manufacture. The CEGAT had held that spent earth cannot be manufactured from activated earth, and similar views were expressed for spent nickel catalyst. The Tribunal considered the arguments and judgments, ultimately accepting the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

The main issue for decision was whether spent fuller earth and spent nickel catalyst are excisable and how they should be classified. The learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the learned Advocate for the respondents cited judgments in support of their position. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including one involving waste and scrap not being a new article and another stating that spent earth in soap manufacture is not a result of manufacture. Additionally, the Tribunal considered a case where spent earth was held excisable under a specific entry in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The Tribunal examined similar cases and held that spent earth is excisable and classifiable under sub-heading 1507.00 of the CETA, 1985. Regarding spent nickel catalyst, the Tribunal followed previous decisions where it was held not to be excisable. Consequently, spent fuller earth was classified under sub-heading 1507.00, while spent nickel catalyst was deemed not excisable. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of based on these findings.