Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Jain Carbide And Chemicals Ltd. vs Cce on 20 February, 2004
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. Though the appeal filed by M/s. Jain Carbide & Chemicals Ltd. is posted for hearing the stay application, we take up the appeal itself after staying the recovery of the duty and penalty confirmed against them as the issue involved has already been settled by the Tribunal.
2. We heard Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate and Sh. P.M. Rao, learned DR. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether slag obtained by them during the process of manufacture of ferro alloys is liable to excise duty; that for the earlier period, the Tribunal has decided the matter in their favour in their own case as reported in 2004 (60) RLT 630. The learned Advocate also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) also, in the impugned order, has referred to the earlier order for the earlier period.
3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Tribunal in Jain Carbide & Chemicals Ltd. Case (supra), wherein it has been held as under :
"We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that slag is obtained by the Appellants during the process of manufacture of Ferro manganese which is the final product of the Appellants. The learned Advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of Tata Metaliks Ltd. wherein the Tribunal has held that slag generated during the process of manufacture of Pig Iron is not excisable relying upon the tribunal's two earlier decisions. "As the product has been held to be not excisable, the question of availing any exemption under Notification No. 19/88 does not arise. Consequently, there will be no contravention of the condition of Notification and the Notification itself is not applicable, impugned goods being non-excisable." We, therefore, following the ratio of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal allow the appeal filed by the Appellants."
4. Thus, following the ratio of the decision in appellants' own case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.