Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Hindustan Gum And Chemical Ltd. on 10 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(167)ELT362(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that waste/scrap of guar gum powder and tamarind kernel powder does not find any mention in Central Excise Tariff and therefore, is not excisable.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents are manufacturing guar gum powder and tamarind kernel powder and carboxy methyl starch and during the manufacture of these products, waste and scrap is generated which is nothing but is their final products of inferior quality and, therefore, is excisable and the respondents are liable to pay duty.
4. The contention of the respondents is that there are two types of waste generated during the manufacture of their final products. The first category is of dust which comes into existence during the manufacture of guar gum powder, tamarind kernel powder and carboxymethyl starch. The powder is conveyed from one place to another place i.e. from pulverisers to sifters and from " sifters to blenders. During this process, air and powder is separated by cyclone. Such air contains very fine particles of powder which is retained in filter bags used for the purposes of pollution control, when the air is released from the manufacturing plant. This waste is known as dust.
5. The second type of waste which is generated during the manufacturing process i.e. during screening of powder through various sifter which is found to be of oversize. This contains various impurities/contamination and the same is neither usable nor have any buyers.
6. The contention of the respondents is that the above mentioned dust/scrap is not covered under any sub-heading of Chapter 13 or Chapter 35 of the Central Excise Act.
7. We find that the Revenue is not disputing the manufacturing process by which the waste and scrap which is in dispute, is generated. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that this waste and scrap is similar to final product, is not acceptable. The waste and scrap which is under consideration is not covered under any sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.