TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant s goods, he felt that distilled methanol has been cleared by the appellant would attract central excise duty at appropriate rate. 4. Undisputedly, appellant herein are manufacturers of bulk drugs and procures methanol for manufacturing of bulk drugs. After substantial use of the said methanol in manufacturing of bulk drugs, appellant herein purifies methanol by distillation process and the same is cleared as spent methanol, adjudicating authority has held that the spent methanol cleared by the appellant being of 90% purity and there has been brought into existence by way of process of distillation and put to use by the purchasers for manufacturing bulk intermediates, paints, thinners etc. and the goods would be excisable. 5. We find that the adjudicating authority has only relied upon the statement of various buyers but has not considered the binding judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-I vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited [2010(259) E.L.T. 673 (A.P.)]. We find that the said judgment is on an identical issue. We reproduce the entire judgment: "[Judgment per : V.V.S. Rao, J. (Common)]. - This common judgment would suffice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, however, allowed and the matter was remanded. After such remand, the Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 5-4-2007, held that spent solvent is not a product excisable to duty and accordingly rejected the department s contention. In the second round of litigation before the CESTAT, the Revenue was again unsuccessful. 4. The learned CESTAT, in the common order, observed that, earlier in the case of the APL, it was held that spent solvent is not excisable to duty and, accordingly, rejected the appeals. For ready reference, we quote the following from the impugned order. "We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. We find that in the case of the respondent i.e., CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 2006 (200) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Bang.), this Bench has held the issue in favour of respondent and hence the issue is no more res integra. Further, it is also seen that in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-IV v. Sreepathi Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2006 (205) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Bang.) and CCE, Hyderabad-III v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2007 (208) E.L.T. 573, the issue was the very same as is before us i.e., spent solvent and excisability thereof. We find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apter-29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when once any product in relation to the products thereunder is subjected to a treatment so as to render it a marketable product, the assessee is liable to pay the duty. 6. The Counsel for APL relies on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.) and CCE, Hyderabad v. Novapan Industries Ltd. - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) and submits thast when the issue of excisability of spent solvent is already decided in the earlier cases in respect of the same assessee or when a similar question is decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CESTAT, the department, having not filed an appeal against the earlier judgment, cannot reagitate the matter. He also relies on various judgments in Collector, Central Excise, Bombay v. S.D. Fine Chemicals Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 49 (S.C.), Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. United Phosphorus Ltd. - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.), CCE, Chandigarh-I v. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.), Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.) and CCE, Hyderabad-III v. Natco Pharm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was, therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd., 2001 (130) E.L.T. 193, cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assesses in a quandary. Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) is being followed consistently. Since the point involved in the present case is identical to the point involved in Hindustan Petroleum Ltd., (supra) and the department having accepted the principle laid down in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (supra), the department cannot be permitted to take a different stand in the present appeals. 9. Yet again, in Novapan Industries Ltd., following Birla Corporation Ltd., v. CCE and Jayaswals Neco Ltd., v. CCE, Nagpur the Supreme Court reiterated the law that, the department having accepted the principles laid down in the earlier case cannot be permitted to take a contra stand in subsequent cases". 10. In CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. the le....