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 upholds decision on spent solvents, rejects Revenue's appeals.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 415 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Appeal involving excisability of spent solvents sold by manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Bulk Drug Intermediates without payment of duty.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Common Issue:The appeals involve manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Bulk Drug Intermediates who sold spent solvents without paying duty, leading to show cause notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the respondents, prompting the Revenue to file appeals.2. Grounds Raised by the Revenue:The Revenue argued that the Commissioner erred in upholding the Order-in-Original by declaring spent solvents as non-excisable goods. They contended that the issue of excisability was not part of the show cause notice, and the Commissioner went beyond its scope.3. Contentions of the Assessees:The assessees claimed that the recovered solvents were declared as industrial waste solvents after being reused multiple times in manufacturing. They cited Chapter Note 10 of Ch. 29 of the CET Act, 1985, to support their classification of derivatives of Toluene and Methanol.4. Legal Precedents and Arguments:The JCDR argued that the goods were excisable, referencing a Tribunal decision on spent sulphuric acid. The Counsel for the respondent cited previous cases where spent solvents were deemed non-excisable, supporting the Commissioner's decision.5. Tribunal's Decision and Reasoning:The Tribunal found that previous judgments favored the respondents, concluding that spent solvents were not excisable products. They referenced a recent 2008 judgment and upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that excisability determined the liability for excise duty.6. Final Ruling:The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Commissioner's decision that spent solvents were not excisable. The judgment aligned with previous decisions and upheld the orders in favor of the respondents.This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the excisability of spent solvents in the mentioned appeals.
TaxTMI 