2013 (11) TMI 491 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under Notification No.89/95 emergence of waste Product During Manufacture By Product OR Waste - Revenue was of the view that the products cannot be treated to be waste products are bi-products, in which case exemption would not be available Held that - Following CCE, Jalandhar vs. A.G. Flats Ltd. 2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - The Notification No.89/95-CE is available to the residues emerged in the form of gum/wax and recovered oil/fatty acids - the appellant is entitled to get stay of the proceeding - the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs - By treating the same as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F, the balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty dispensed stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the products arising during the manufacture process can be considered as waste or by-products for exemption under Notification No.89/95.
2. Applicability of recent Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments on similar issues.
3. Granting stay of proceedings and dispensing with the balance amount of duty and penalty.
4. Significance of the disputed issue with multiple pending appeals and the possibility of referring the matter to a Larger Bench.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of determining whether the products arising during the manufacturing process can be classified as waste or by-products for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification No.89/95. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of refined soya and vanaspathi oil, claimed exemption for waste products like fatty acids, wax, and gums. The Revenue contended that these were by-products, not waste, thus challenging the exemption claim.

2. The Tribunal considered recent decisions, including one by the Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Maheswari Solvent Extraction Ltd., which acknowledged contradictory Tribunal decisions and subsequent Supreme Court dismissals. The Tribunal held that Notification No.89/95 applied to residues like gum/wax and recovered oil/fatty acids, supporting the appellant's position based on the latest precedents.

3. Granting stay of proceedings, the Tribunal noted the appellant's deposit of a substantial amount and deemed it sufficient under Section 35F. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the balance duty and penalty, acknowledging the evolving nature of the legal interpretation in similar cases.

4. Recognizing the broader implications of the disputed issue with numerous pending appeals and conflicting Tribunal decisions upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to expedite the present appeal for final disposal on 8th October, 2013. The Tribunal contemplated the possibility of referring the matter to a Larger Bench for a comprehensive resolution due to the legal intricacies and conflicting precedents.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuanced interpretation of waste versus by-products for exemption under Notification No.89/95, considering recent legal precedents, granting stay of proceedings, and contemplating the need for a comprehensive resolution through potential reference to a Larger Bench.