Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (1) TMI 622

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal for the sake of convenience. The disputed period is April, 2008 to July, 2013. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of the Sponge Iron. In the burner, the appellant is using coal by which the bottom ash and wet scraper waste are generated. The department has demanded the duty on the bottom ash/ flying ash. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background we heard Shri J.M. Sharma, Ld Counsel for the appellant and Shri H. Saini, Ld. DR for the Revenue. 4. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of record it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. V/s CCE & ST, Udaipur. 1. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... results in generation of a residual waste. The Department demanded duty on such fly ash cleared by the assessee-Appellants. On the other hand, Shri M.R. Sharma, learned DR for the Department, justified the impugned order. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs CCE&ST, Raipur, Final Order No. 54037/2017 dated 19.06.2017, wherein it was observed that : "5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. The dispute is with reference to the liability of the Appellants to pay Central Excise Duty on the fly ash emerging during the course of generation of electricity. The lower authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty. In the case on hand, it is clear from the averments of either rparty and is also not in dispute that „fly ash‟ is a by-product during the production of electricity and is not the main manufactured item. Further, the „fly ash‟ is not a commodity which can be used as such in the manufactured item. Further, the „fly ash‟ is not a commodity which can be used as such in the market, but it is usable only as one of the materials in the production of other products. Therefore, there being no manufacture of „fly ash‟‟ but „fly ash‟ gets formed as a by-product during the production of electricity, merely because the goods „fly ash‟ finds a place in the specific or r....