9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide which a demand of INR 4,84,142/- plus interest has been confirmed against the Appellant under rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules r/w section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The period involved, in the present case, is from March 2011 to June 2011. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is availing Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. After the completion of manufacturing process, waste water is drained out which is required to be filtered/clarified/treated in Effluent treatment plant to make it clean and environment friendly before it is released in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Appellant itself has held that assessee's intention is not to produce such sludge but instead the assessee is aiming at the manufacture of paper. However, during the course of such manufacture, the said sludge inevitably arises and the same is nothing but waste or by-product. In view of the same, Tribunal had set aside the demand raised on such paper sludge which is a mere waste. The said order of the Tribunal is reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I vs. Star Paper Mills Ltd. 2003 (158) E.L.T. 846 (Tri.-Del.). 5. It is the case of the Appellant that the impugned goods in the present case i.e. waste sludge arising out of the process of manufacture of paper is not an excisable goods as the same does not satisfy the test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the Supreme Court's judgment in Modi Laminates (P) Ltd. and Dharangadhra Chemicals [1997 (91) E.L.T. 253 (S.C.)] as also several other cases, held that, the sludge is not an excisable product though sold by the respondents. 3. The catena of judgments extensively quoted by the Commissioner (Appeals) are enough to prove that the sludge is not an excisable product and is not required to pay any excise duty. The Tribunal in its judgment in the case of Shankar Sugar Mills [1998 (100) E.L.T. 151 (T)] and Supreme Court in their decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Titawi Sugar Complex [2003 (152) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)] have held that press-mud, being a residue waste, cannot be called the final product. 4. In order to charge a manufacturer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ahmadabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 2003 (158) E.L.T. 3 (SC) has held that since excise duty is an incidence of manufacture therefore it is essential that the product in question should have gone through a process of manufacture. Subsequently, reference may be made to the case of Magnum Ventures vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad 2014 (303) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been categorically held that sludge or paper waste emerging inevitably during the course of manufacture are not excisable goods as the same have not arisen as a result of any manufacturing activity under section 2(d) of Central Excise Act. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon an interim order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
