TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order-in- Appeal No. 82-86 (SRM)CE/JDR/2018-19 dated 09.08.2018 Order-in- Original No. 03/1999-CE (Demand) dated 08.01.1999 84/1999-CE (Demand) dated 31.08.1999 118/1999-CE (Demand) dated 29.10.1999 59/2000-CE (Demand) dated 13.04.2000 101/2001-CE (Demand) dated 29.09.2001 Show Cause Notice 27.03.1998 16.02.1999 29.04.1999 10.09.1999 03.01.2000 12.05.2000 Period of dispute Sept. 1997 to Jan 1998 Aug 1998 to Dec. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise Act. Observing the same, respective show cause notices as mentioned in the above table were served upon the appellants proposing the respective demands as mentioned therein alongwith the interest at the appropriate rates and the proportionate penalties. The entire proposal was initially confirmed vide respective Orders in Original, as mentioned in the table above. Being aggrieved, 5 appeals were preferred, which have been disposed of by the common Order-in-Appeal No.82-86 / JVR/18-19 dated 09.08.2018. By the said order, the appeals have been rejected. Being aggrieved, the assessee-appellant are before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard Ms. Sukriti Das, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.C. Saini, Ld. D.R. for the Department. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2014 (303) ELT 321 (S.C.) However, the said decision has clearly been distinguished by Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the impugned appeal. The findings in para 10 and para 15 are impressed upon to create the distinction between the previous cases and the present one. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order, appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing records as well as case laws cited, we adjudicate the aforementioned controversy in following terms:- 7.1 The appellants admittedly are extracting zinc and lead etc. from the respective ore/concentration. Admittedly there are two processes employed by the appellant for the said extraction. First is Hydro- Metall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t which contains approx. 65-70% Lead, 10-15% Zinc, 5-7% Copper, 4-5% Silver and certain other impurities. This is further processed to recover Zinc and Lead, thus, leaving Silver (a by-product) during the elimination process. This process has been elaborately discussed at pg. 57 of the OIO No. 118/1999-CE (Demand) dated 29.10.1999of the Appeal Paper Book. 8. The perusal of this procedure makes it abundantly clear that this pyro silver is being extracted as an unavoidable remnant which apparently and admittedly cleared by the appellants without demand of duty due to specific exemption available to the assessee. The process further clarifies that since no other separate activity or process is being employed by the appellant to extract the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Di-oxide gas is nothing but a by-product in the process of manufacture of zinc/lead. Rule 57D(1) of the Central Excise Rules, at the relevant time, provided that the credit of specified duty "shall not be denied or varied on the ground that part of inputs is contained in any waste, refuse, or by-product, or that the inputs have become waste during the course of manufacture of the final product, whether or not such waste or refuse or by-product is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to nil rate of duty or is not specified as a final product under Rule 57A." It is, thus, apparent from the provisions of Rule 57D(1) of the Rules that credit shall not be denied on the ground that part of the inputs is con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the present matter. The decisions relied upon by the learned SDR do not advance the case of the Revenue as far as the present issue is involved. In both these cases, what has been held is that the subsidiary by-products, which are regularly and continuously obtained and sold, are also the result of manufacture. The issue in the present matter is not whether the process undertaken by the appellants to get Sulphuric Acid amounts to manufacture or not. The issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on LDO is to be denied proportionately as the Sulphuric Acid, which has already been obtained by the appellants is exempted from payment of duty. It has been observed by the Tribunal in the case of Aarti Drugs Ltd. th....