2008 (2) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ote that the lower authorities have demanded duty of over Rs. 26.5 lakhs from the appellants in respect of what is called "floatation reject" for the period 2002-03 to 2005-06 and have also imposed penalties on them under various provisions of law. The demand is contested mainly on the ground that the above Commodity is not excisable. It appears from the records that the item is generated during t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... requires it. The lower authorities have demanded duty on this item. 2. It is submitted by the representative of the company that Floatation reject does not answer the twin tests for excisability. It is submitted that it cannot be said to have been manufactured, nor can it be considered to be marketable. Learned SDR submits that this item is classifiable under Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmodity as an "article". The case law submitted by learned SDR is on excisability or other wise of silver chloride containing over 50% of silver by weight. The decision does not pertain to any industrial waste like Floatation reject. 4. In the result, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X