TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal Precedent: Consistency in Legal Positions Upheld for Excisability of Spent Solvents</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 673 (A. P.) Issues:1. Whether the spent solvent in the manufacturing activity is liable to duty under the Central Excise Act.2. Whether the department can take a contrary stand in subsequent cases after accepting a principle in an earlier case.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involved appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed by the Revenue against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent, a pharmaceutical company engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs, used various solvents in their process. The spent solvents were purified and reused, with excess sold to dealers at a nominal price. The jurisdictional Commissioner issued show cause notices proposing duty, interest, and penalty for clearing solvents without payment. The Commissioner initially levied duty, but the order was set aside. The subsequent order held that spent solvents were not excisable, a decision upheld by the CESTAT. The Revenue argued that purified spent solvent attracts duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act.Issue 2:The second issue revolved around the department's attempt to reagitate the excisability of spent solvents after accepting the principle in earlier cases. The Tribunal cited precedents stating that the department cannot take a different stand in subsequent cases after accepting principles laid down earlier. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle, emphasizing that the department cannot adopt a contrary position. The Tribunal considered the spent solvent's excisability in depth, concluding that it was not a marketable product post-manufacture. The department's acceptance of this contention precluded them from reagitating the issue based on established legal principles.The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in legal positions and the binding nature of precedents, ultimately dismissing the appeals and upholding the decision that spent solvents were not excisable products.
TaxTMI 