TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Sulphonic Acid. The period of dispute in the appeal No. E/571/2008 is from February, 2003 to November, 2006, the period of dispute in the appeal No. E/2248/2004 is from 15.09.1997 to 31.03.1998 and the period of dispute in the appeal no. E/4609/2004 is from July, 2002 to January, 2003. During this period the Assessee, in terms of their job work agreement with M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. (M/s. HLL) were manufacturing Sulphonic Acid on job work basis out of the Lineal Alkyl Benzene (LAB) supplied by M/s HLL free of charges. For processing of the LAB to make Sulphonic Acid, Sulphuric Acid is required, which was being procured by the Assessee on their own account. In course of manufacture of Sulphonic Acid from LAB by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders of the Original Adjudicating Authority, these demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal dated 22.01.2004 and 09.07.2004. The Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 31.05.2006 reported in 2006 (206) ELT-311 and final order No. 496/08 dated 17.07.2008 reversed the Commissioner (Appeals)s order. For the period from February, 2003 to November 2006, the total duty demand confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority is Rs. 32,65,724/- by a common Adjudication Order dated 20.12.2007 and on appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in appeal dated 14.11.2007 upheld the order in original by fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as may be available to them in law. 9. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. 1.3 Accordingly, in accordance with the above directions of the apex court, the appeals to be heard afresh. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Pramod Kumar, the Ld. Jt. CDR, defending the Tribunals order in these matters pleaded that the assessee were manufacturing Sulphonic Acid for M/s. HLL on job work basis out of the raw material - LAB supplied by them, that for the processing of LAB to make Sulphonic Acid, the Assessee were using their own Sulphuric Acid, that in this process some spent Sulphuric Acid arose which was being sold by them, that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om M/s. HLL, there was no question of returning the spent Sulphuric Acid to the principal manufacturer or in the event of retention of the same adding the value of the retained spent acid in the job charges, that the Tribunals observation in para 3 of judgment reported in 2006 (206) ELT 311, that during the manufacture of Sulphonic Acid, if any waste or byproduct is diverted, then it has to go to M/s. HLL or it can clear it from the factory of job worker on payment of appropriate duty, is not correct for the reason that so far as the Sulphuric Acid is concerned, the same was not being received from M/s HLL but has been procured by the assessee on their own and belonged to the assessee, that when the assessee had procured the Sulphuric Acid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In our view, when the job charges consist of the conversion charges plus the cost of the raw material belonging to the job worker which were used by him, the cost of only that much quantity of raw material would be required to be included in the job charges which has actually been used. On going through the calculation of the processing charges, annexed with the job work agreement, we find that this is what the assessee have done. The landed cost of 1.1 MT of Sulphuric Acid required for manufacture of 1.45MT of Sulphonic Acid (by treating one MT of LAB) is Rs. 1980/- and in the process 0.8 MT spent acid is generated, which was sold by the assessee for Rs. 380/-. The assessee, therefore, have treated the cost of the Sulpho....