Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. thermax (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the issue for consideration is whether the bagasse fired boilers were eligible for the benefit of exemption under notification no. 120/81-c.e., dated 15-5-1981 as amended which among others provided exemption to agricultural and municipal waste conversion devices producing energy. the collector of central excise (appeals) bombay relying upon the board's clarification under f. no. b/36/84-cki, dated 14-4-1988 had held that the bagasse was an agricultural waste and the appellants (respondents before us) were eligible to claim the benefit of exemption notification no. 120/81. he had in his order cited the board's instructions dated 14-4-1988. the matter was fixed for hearing on 18-2-1997. no one is present for the respondents m/s. thermax (p) ltd., pune. as the matter is old we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing shri a.k.agarwal, sdr who is present for the appellant revenue.2. shri a.k. agarwal, sdr submitted that the boards's clarification referred to rice husk, fired boiler and that the bagasse could not be considered as an agricultural waste.3. we have carefully considered the matter. we find that the issue before the 18th east zonal tariff cum central conference held at bhubneshwar on 24th and 25th august, 1984 related to boiler which was operated on waste material like rice, husk, bagasse wood waste etc.after deliberation, the conference has concluded that waste material like rice husk, wood waste, bagasse etc. could be considered as agricultural waste.4. bagasse is a residue when the cane is crushed to obtain cane juice.it is generally used as fuel although it had also uses in the manufacture of paper. the fact remains that it is an agricultural waste. as there is no dispute that the boiler in question operated on the bagasse, we consider that the view taken by the ld. collector central excise (appeals) bombay was correct and does not call for any interference.5. in view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue and the same is rejected.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for consideration is whether the bagasse fired boilers were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 120/81-C.E., dated 15-5-1981 as amended which among others provided exemption to agricultural and municipal waste conversion devices producing energy. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay relying upon the Board's clarification under F. No. B/36/84-CKI, dated 14-4-1988 had held that the bagasse was an agricultural waste and the appellants (respondents before us) were eligible to claim the benefit of exemption notification No. 120/81. He had in his order cited the Board's instructions dated 14-4-1988. The matter was fixed for hearing on 18-2-1997. No one is present for the respondents M/s. Thermax (P) Ltd., Pune. As the matter is old we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri A.K.Agarwal, SDR who is present for the appellant Revenue.

2. Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR submitted that the Boards's clarification referred to rice husk, fired boiler and that the bagasse could not be considered as an agricultural waste.

3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the issue before the 18th East Zonal Tariff cum Central Conference held at Bhubneshwar on 24th and 25th August, 1984 related to boiler which was operated on waste material like rice, husk, bagasse wood waste etc.

After deliberation, the conference has concluded that waste material like rice husk, wood waste, bagasse etc. could be considered as agricultural waste.

4. Bagasse is a residue when the cane is crushed to obtain cane juice.

It is generally used as fuel although it had also uses in the manufacture of paper. The fact remains that it is an agricultural waste. As there is no dispute that the boiler in question operated on the bagasse, we consider that the view taken by the ld. Collector Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay was correct and does not call for any interference.

5. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.