Tribunal rules gases released without consideration are exempt from excise duty, dismissing Department's demand.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order exempting gases vented out into the atmosphere from excise duty based on a previous decision and a relevant Board's Circular. The appellant's appeal was allowed, aligning with the precedent that gases released without consideration are not subject to excise duty. The Department's demand for excise duty amounting to &8377;8,98,95,927/- was set aside, and the appeal was dismissed in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Levy of excise duty on gases vented out into the atmosphere by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original demanding excise duty on gases vented out into the atmosphere during the course of manufacturing various gases like Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon. The appellant cleared these gases through a pipeline to a recipient for maintenance purposes. The Department issued a show-cause notice demanding excise duty amounting to &8377; 8,98,95,927/- from the appellant. However, the impugned order set aside the duty demands, leading to the appellant's appeal.

During the proceedings, it was highlighted that a similar issue concerning the same appellant had previously been decided in favor of the respondent by the Tribunal. The earlier decision emphasized the unique technological constraints faced by the appellant in allowing some gases to escape into the air to prevent pipeline damage due to pressure accumulation. Citing a relevant Board's Circular, it was clarified that gases vented out into the atmosphere were exempt from excise duty, especially when no consideration was received for them. The Department had accepted this decision, and in line with the precedent, the impugned orders were sustained, and the appeals were dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the earlier decision and the Board's Circular exempting gases vented out into the atmosphere from excise duty. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, maintaining consistency with the previous ruling.

---