Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sahyadri Starch And Auxi Chem Inds. Pvt. ... vs C.C.E. And C. on 5 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(113)ELT829(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of starch from maize. The process of manufacture requires treating with kernel of maize with water into which had been dissolved sulphur dioxide. Notice was issued to the assessee alleging that by this process of the mixing of sulphur dioxide and water, dilute sulphuric acid emerges, on which duty had not been paid; since the final product, starch was exempt from duty by Notification 27/91, the benefit of Notification under 217/86 could not be available to it. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector demanding duty on the sulphuric acid held by him to have been manufactured.
2. The contention of the Advocate of the appellant that sulphuric acid was not manufactured at all has to be accepted. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary by G. Hawley refers to a solution of sulphur di-oxide in water as sulphuric acid and unstable. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms also says it such a product sulphurous acid, H2SO3 as an unstable liquid. The report of the testing of samples is by the Chemical Examiner of the solution, although carried out much later to the proceedings, contained in the letter, dated 29-1-1999 by the Superintendent to the assessee, produced by its Advocate indicates that the contents of water in the sulphuric acid is only 0.16%.
3. The notice demands duty, not on this product, but on dilute sulphuric acid; Sulphuric acid with the formula H2SO4 is largely obtained by dissolving sulphur trioxide in a stream of 98 to 99% sulphuric acid where it unites with the small excess of water in the acid to form more acid (Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Hawley). Scientifically and commercially, it is very different product than with we are concerned with. The departmental representative feebly tried to argue that what was contemplated in the notice was recovery of duty on sulphur di-oxide which is a marketable goods. However, the order of the Assistant Collector and that of the Collector (Appeals) are very clear and specific that product on which duty is demanded and confirmed is sulphuric acid. This product has not came into existence. The further question as to whether the sulphurous acid in view of its instability is marketable is therefore not required to be gone into.
4. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.