2016 (10) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the cement is not required in the manufacturing activity of final products of the appellant (viz: lead, zinc or sulphuric acid) and hence the exemption claimed is not available. Proceeding initiated against appellant concluded in the original order dated 18.3.2011.The original authority denied the exemption and confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 25,56,798/-. He also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2011 upheld the original order. Against this order, the appellants are before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. A.R. for Revenue. We have also perused appeal records and the written submissions. The admitted facts are that the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inc. We find such interpretation is too restrictive and untenable in the factual context of the usage of cement in present case. Apparently, the lower authorities held the view that once the zinc/ lead is manufactured, the treatment of effluent is nothing to do with such manufacture. Such view is factually and legally unsustainable. Without controlled disposal of hazardous effluent no manufacture of zinc is possible/permitted. Ignoring such a holistic view will be against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corp. Ltd. 1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC). The Supreme Court was examining the availability of exemption under Notificatin No.187/61 CE to raw naphtha used in the manufacture of ammonia, which is availa....