2007 (8) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e original authority Nos. 10/2004 and 11/2004 both dated 4-10-2004. The original authority had demanded respectively Rs. 86,053/- and Rs. 38,886/- being 8% of the sale price of gypsum and garnet which arise in the course of manufacture respectively of salt and Ilmenite by M/s. DCW Ltd. (DCW for short). DCW manufactures various industrial chemicals. The impugned orders relate respectively to the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... waste sediment which remained in the salt pans after removal of salt. In harvesting salt, motors and pumps were used for pumping water. Gypsum was dug out from the salt pans after the salt was removed. The Commissioner found that both garnet and gypsum were waste products similar to press mud. He relied on the Circular of the Board No. 730/46/2003-CX., dated 31-7-2003, wherein the Board had accep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facture of Ilmenite and salt. Even if the exempted byproducts emerged in the course of manufacture of final products using common inputs, excise law does not require that any amount has to be paid by the respondents in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR for their clearance. He has sought support from the decision of this Tribunal in M.K. Agrotech (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mysore reported in 2007 (211) E.L.T. 550....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the impugned order confirming the order of the original authority directing payment of 8% of the sale price of garnet and gypsum. The demand in the subject case relates to removals of garnet and gypsum during 04/2002 to 01/2003. The orders impugned in both the appeals deal with a common issue and the appeals are dealt with together. I find that there is no dispute that garnet rejects and gypsum ....