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>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants on duty exemption for scrap and spent catalyst.</h1> <h3>M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus CCE, Rohtak</h3> M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus CCE, Rohtak - TMI Issues:Whether duty is payable on scrap of capital goods and spent Zinc Oxide Catalyst.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the liability to pay duty on scrap of capital goods and spent Zinc Oxide Catalyst by a manufacturer of Petroleum products. The appellants contended that they were not liable to pay excise duty on the scrap as it was generated in the manufacturing process and not manufactured by them. They relied on various legal decisions to support their argument. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).The main issue in the appeal was whether the appellants were liable to pay duty on the scrap of capital goods and spent Zinc Oxide Catalyst. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. The appellants argued that the waste/scrap cleared by them were not excisable goods as they were generated in the manufacturing process of Petroleum products. The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court which clarified the issue of whether waste and scrap generated due to scrapping of worn out parts of capital goods attracted duty. The Tribunal found that the scrap cleared by the appellants were scrap of worn out capital goods and, based on the nature of the manufacturing activity, confirmed that duty was not liable on the same.Regarding the liability on the excise duty on spent Zinc Oxide Catalyst, the Tribunal found that it was not a new product arising during the manufacture of final Petroleum products. The Tribunal referred to a Tribunal judgment which held that the transformation of a Catalyst into Spent Catalyst did not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that excise duty was not leviable on the spent catalyst.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not sustainable and set it aside. The Tribunal allowed both the stay application and the appeal in favor of the appellants.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
