Tribunal rules waste products non-excisable, grants refund

M/s Shri Sant Tukaram SSK Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise - Pune-III

M/s Shri Sant Tukaram SSK Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise - Pune-III - TMI Issues:
- Liability to pay 5%/10% amount on cleared waste products
- Refund claim based on non-excisability of waste products

Analysis:
1. Liability to pay 5%/10% amount on cleared waste products: The appellant, a sugar manufacturer, cleared Bagasse, Press mud, and Fly Ash without duty payment, claiming them to be non-excisable. The revenue contended that as separate accounts were not maintained for common goods and input services, the appellant must pay 5%/10% of the value of the exempted goods cleared. The appellant paid under protest and sought a refund, citing favorable decisions in similar cases. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim. However, the Tribunal noted that in a previous case, it held that press mud is waste and non-excisable. Citing this precedent and the decision of the Allahabad High Court, waste products like Bagasse and Press Mud were considered non-excisable, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not liable to pay the disputed amount.

2. Refund claim based on non-excisability of waste products: The appellant argued that previous decisions supported their claim that waste products like Press Mud were non-excisable. The revenue, however, referred to a case where waste and scrap were deemed excisable as per the Central Excise Tariff. After considering both arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's position, emphasizing that waste cannot be treated as a by-product and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to a refund of the amount paid under protest. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, holding that waste products like Bagasse, Press mud, and Fly Ash were non-excisable, and the appellant was entitled to a refund of the amount paid under protest. The decision was based on precedents and legal interpretations that supported the appellant's position, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.