9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drug intermediates which are excisable. They also cleared different spent solvents/mixed spent solvents classifying them under chapter sub-heading No.2942.00 of Central Excise Tariff/Revenue proceeded against the respondents on the ground that they had been removing the spent solvents without payment of duty. Therefore, show cause notice dated 19-4-2002 was issued answerable to Addl. Commissioner of C.E. C. demanding duty on the clearances of bulk drugs/bulk drugs intermediates, clearances of spent solvents. Penalties were also proposed. The Addl. Commissioner confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the orders of the Addl. Commissioner. Revenue preferred appeal before CES TAT, Bangalore. This Bench vide final order No. 1458 1459/2005 dated 22-8-2005 remanded the matter to the Original Authority for de novo consideration. The Addl. Commissioner passed the order, whereby he dropped the proceedings in respect of spent methanol solvent. Revenue was aggrieved over the impugned order of the Addl. Commissioner and therefore an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on several grounds. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This classification of Toluene is con firmed in the Hon'ble Tribunal's Order in the case of M/s. Polychein Ltd. v. CCE , reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 919 (Tribunal). Similarly, in terms of the said chapter note, the derivatives of Methanol is classifiable under chapter heading No. 2905.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4.3 The question in dispute is undervaluation/excisability of the impugned goods that are misdeclared as industrial waste solvents even though the purity of the impugned goods ranges from 40% to 80% and the assessees are paying Central Excise Duty by resorting to Gross Under valuation. This is evident from various statements recorded from the persons who have purchased the impugned goods. 4.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have erred in stating that the present case is distinguishable with that of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal given in the case of M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries v. OCE, Madras, 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1012 (T-Chennai) as in the case of M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries, spent sulphuric acid is a by-product whereas in the present case spent solve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal further ob served that the respondents may pass an appropriate order levying excise duty on spent acid, if the same is cleared illegally without payment of duty. The present case of spent solvents is also similar to spent acid as discussed in earlier paras. 5. The above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal appear to be relevant and are squarely applicable in the case of spent Methanol/solvents the subject issue too is similar in all respects. Accordingly, the spent Sol vents appear to be manufactured/excisable goods and are liable to duty on the appropriate value of the goods. 6. Further, Commissioner (A) relied upon the Hon'ble Tribunal's judgment in the case of S.D. Fine Chem. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 610 which deals with purification of 'bought out " chemicals. This case is not relevant to the present case in as much as in the present case the spent solvents are not bought out but have come into existence within the factory during the process of manufacture of bulk drugs and bulk drug intermediates. 3. We have cases gone through the records of the carefully. Similar issue was the subject matter before this Tribunal in the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soda, it cannot be said that any manufacture resulting in emergence of new product has taken place. It is their contention that caustic soda recovered from the lye is already duty paid caustic soda received by them initially. For the above proposition, re liance has been placed upon various decisions of the judicial as also quasi judicial authorities. 5. We find that an identical issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of Alchemie Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 745 (T) and the Tribunal after taking note of the earlier two decisions in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise v. Bakul Aromatics Chemicals Ltd. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 758 and S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 610, held that as the resultant product has the same characteristics except for the concentration, it is not possible to say that change in concentration would result in emergence of new product. Similarly in the case of Commissioner v. Yash Pharma Chemicals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1206 (Tri. - Del.) it was held, after taking note of the precedent decisions that howsoever elaborate the process undertaken is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
