9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her hand remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-examination of the claim on the point of unjust enrichment on the ground that the goods, in respect of which refund claim was made, were being used captively in the process of textiles and there was no stage of passing on the burden of duty to the customer. 2.We have heard Shri Prakash Shah, ld. Counsel for the appellant und Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. DR for the Revenue. 3.As per facts on record, appellants are using duty paid caustic soda for mercering of fabrics. Such use of caustic soda results in emergence of spent caustic soda lye. The same is re-cycled and caustic soda is recovered, which again is used for mercering of fabrics. The undisputed process of recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soda and through the intermediate process of emergence of spent caustic soda lye, recovered caustic soda only. As such, the starting material and the final material being the same i.e. caustic 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, reliance 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities that the existence of notification exempting the product is conclusive to show that the product was excisable and as such, has correctly discharged duty burden, on exemption being withdrawn, does not appeal to us in as much, the product for being held as excisable, needs to satisfy the basic criteria of manufacture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Ahmedabad Electricity Company - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) as held 'cinder' as 'non-excisable' even though cinder was mentioned as one of the exempted product in Notification No. 76/86-Central Excise dated 10-2-1986. Similarly in the case of Commissioner v. Markfed Vanaspati and Allied Industries - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.) it was observed that mere mention of a produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
