9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-EX(DB) - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa: The facts, briefly stated, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron from iron ore and use coal both as a reducing agent as well as for supplying heat. As combustion of coal is not allowed to be complete as a requirement of the manufacturing process, a residue namely Char Fines/Lumps is generated which fetches value on being sold. The appellants have not been paying duty on such char fines/lumps. The Order-in-Appeal has held that the said product is excisable goods spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE Meerut 2013 (290) ELT 251 (Tri-Del) that bagasse and press mud are not excisable even after the amendment of Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act. 4. In fact, we note that Commissioner (A) in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period has dropped the demand raised in respect of the identical product by following the Tribunal s decision in the case of Haryana Steel Power Ltd. Vs. CCE Mysore 2015 (325) ELT 400 (Tri Bang.). For better appreciation the relevant part from the said order of Commissioner (A) is reproduced below: 8. The appellant has contested the said confirmation of demand of central excise duty on the ground that the char fines / lumps generated as residual unburnt coal wastage during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered to be manufactured items in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. 5.1 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the amendment in Section 2(d) has not changed the scenario. Accordingly, the law declared in the above decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Bombay High Court would apply, read with the decisions of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 9. Further, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) has held that merely that the goods are classifiable under Chapter heading of Central Excise Tariff and capable of being sold cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of demand of central excise duty ₹ 10,69,236/- is not sustainable, on merit. The submission of the appellant is convincing and also the case laws cited by them are applicable in the instant case. Further, since the demand of central excise duty in itself is not sustainable, the question of recovery of interest and imposition of penalty does not arise. The impugned order is set aside. Held accordingly. 5. We are informed that the said order of Commissioner (A) stand accepted by the Revenue and no further appeal stand filed by them. 6. As such it may be safely concluded that the disputed issue has attained finality at the Departmental level also. In view of the foregoing, we find no justification in upholding the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
