2007 (6) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents to their job worker during the period from 11-2-2000 to 15-11-2000. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB, for short), for which Pacol Catalyst is used. During the period of dispute, they used such catalyst (imported) and the 'spent catalyst', which was no longer usable as catalyst in the process of manufacture of LAB, was cleared to a job worker for recovery of platinum metal. The job worker recovered the precious metal from the 'spent catalyst' and returned the same to the respondents. However, neither the respondents nor their job worker followed the procedure under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The platinum metal returned by the job worker was exported by the respondents to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The demand of duty was set aside on the further ground that the above item had been ultimately exported in the form of "Platinum Sponge". In the present appeal, the Revenue accepts classification of "Spent Pacol Catalyst" under SH 7101.90, which reads : "waste and scrap containing precious metal or precious metal compounds, of a kind used principally for the recovery of precious metal". It is submitted that the decision in Herdillia Unimers (supra) is not applicable to this case. It is submitted that the respondents were liable to pay duty on such waste and scrap when cleared for home consumption. It is, further, submitted that this liability cannot be by-passed on the ground that 'platinum sponge' recovered from the above goods was expor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are agreeable for classification of the goods under the entry proposed by the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee had not claimed before the Tribunal in the first round of litigation that "Spent Pacol Catalyst" was not excisable. Their claim was only to get the goods classified under Chapter 71 in view of the Tribunal's decision in Herdillia Unimers (supra). The remand order of the Tribunal was accepted by the assessee. Hence the present plea of the respondents that the item in question is not excisable cannot be accepted. As regards classification also, practically there is no dispute, both sides having converged on Heading 71.01. The only question now to be considered is whether the respondents should be asked to p....