Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Oct-06-2010 |
| Appeal No.E/1037 of 2004 & E/1038 of 2004 |
| THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER |
| Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd |
| Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai |
| Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate. Ms. Uma Maheswari, Advocate. Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR. |
per jyoti balasundaram 1. the issue in these appeals is whether floor sweepings arising during the course of manufacture of detergents and comprising waste material and residual waste of raw material, is dutiable. 2. on hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled by the tribunal’s decision in kailash soap pvt. ltd. vs cce bolpur [2008 (23) elt 176] holding that floor sweepings arising in the process of manufacture of soap comprising of waste material and residual waste of raw material is not dutiable as no evidence establishing its marketability was produced by the revenue. in that case, as in the present one, the floor sweepings were cleared on a nominal value but in spite of that, the bench held that the item was not excisable and hence not liable to duty. following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.
Per Jyoti Balasundaram
1. The issue in these appeals is whether floor sweepings arising during the course of manufacture of detergents and comprising waste material and residual waste of raw material, is dutiable.
2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled by the Tribunal’s decision in Kailash Soap Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Bolpur [2008 (23) ELT 176] holding that floor sweepings arising in the process of manufacture of soap comprising of waste material and residual waste of raw material is not dutiable as no evidence establishing its marketability was produced by the Revenue. In that case, as in the present one, the floor sweepings were cleared on a nominal value but in spite of that, the Bench held that the item was not excisable and hence not liable to duty. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.