9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of bulk drugs. During the process of manufacture of bulk drugs they used Palladium Charcoal Catalyst which is imported from UK. During the process of manufacture the said catalyst facilitates the Reaction. Over the period of use the said catalyst looses its effectiveness/potency and has to be replaced periodically. Palladium the precious metal which is used to manufacture this catalyst. The spent catalyst is cleared by the appellant by way of sale. A demand of duty on the said clearances for the period November 2003 to January 2007 was raised. The duty was demanded holding that the spent catalyst is classifiable under Heading 2620.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and chargeable to tax at the rate of 16% Adv. 2.1. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chem Corporation 2004 (178) ELT 686. 2.3. Ld. Counsel argued that catalyst cannot be considered as raw material used in the process of manufacture as it does not form part of the end-product. He thus argued that catalyst cannot be said to emerge as a result of manufacture. In this regard he relied on the following decisions: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I..G. Petrochemical 2015 (324) ELT 21 (S.C.) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deepak Fertilizers Ltd. & Petrochem Corporation2004 (178) ELT 686 (iii) Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (42) ELT 284 (Tribunal) (iv) Amrit Vanaspati Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut1988 (35) ELT 479 (Tribunal). 2.4. Ld. Counsel also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chemical compounds of base metals (heading 26.20) and spent catalysts of a kind used principally for the recovery of precious metal (heading 71.12) 2.6. Ld. Counsel further argued that show cause does not disclose under which heading revenue seeks to classify spent catalysts. The show cause notice however notes that earlier the appellant had classified the said product under heading 2620.00. The show cause notice also notices that during the disputed period the appellant had shows the product description spent catalysts under Heading 2620.00 in the ER.1 returns although the quantity manufactured and cleared was shown as nil. 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. Ld. Counsel for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of Tribunal on the following ground: "Delay condoned. Application for substituting the name of the respondent is allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In our view, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as the Department has failed to establish that spent palladium catalyst is a marketable commodity. Hence, these appeals are dismissed." Revenue has asserted that the said decision is not applicable in the instant case as the marketability of the said product is established in as much as the appellants are selling spent catalysts to two parties. 5. The appellant have also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Kusum Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1988 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
