HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from Order -in -Appeal No. 156 -162/2000 dated 6.10.2000 by which the demands raised in several Orders -in - Original No. 81/98 dated 26.10.98; No. 69/98 dated 30.9.98; No. 78/98 dated 26.10.98; No. 98/98 dated 31.12.98; No. 33/99 dated 30.7.99; No. 77/99 dated 30.9.99 and No. 119/99 dated 31.12.99 have been confirmed.

(2.) THE appellants are manufactures of Silver among other excisable products falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 7101.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Silver was manufactured from High Silver Crust (HSC). It is obtained from Lead Refinery Section. HSC contents Lead 70 -80%; Zinc 12 -15% and Silver 3 -4%. Silver is manufactured by removing impurities like Lead, Zinc, etc., from HSC through series of process. In the first stage the Lead content in HSC is removed from the liquidation furnace. In the second stage, the Zinc content is removed from a Retort furnace. In the third stage, impurities like zinc, copper and lead is still remained with silver are removed for BBOC furnace. Silver is further refined by another process to get a purity of 99.4% - 99.6%. During July 1999 -September 1999, the appellants cleared 3254.044 kgs. of silver. The department issued show cause notice on the ground that they had cleared without paying an amount equal to 8% of the price as required under Rule 57CC(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On this ground, the demands have been confirmed by both the authorities.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submits that this very issue has been decided in their own case in their favour by Delhi Bench as reported in 2004 (178) ELT 255 (Tri. -Del.). He also relied on similar rulings in respect of by products which has been removed without paying 8% and the Tribunal has held that such byproducts are eligible for benefit by erstwhile Rule of 57D (1) of Central Excise Rules as held in Hi -Tech Carbon v. CCE, Allahabad . He has also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Aureola Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Indore 2004 (175) ELT 148 (Tri. -Delhi) wherein also on similar removal of Spent Sulphuric Acid obtained during the manufacture of final product and cleared under Chapter X Procedure of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal has held that duty is not payable under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules. Reliance is also placed on a similar order of Delhi Bench in the case of CCE, Noida v. Laxmi Agro Industrial Consultants and Exporters Ltd. reported in 2004 (178) ELT 924 (Tri. -Del.). Further reliance is placed on Wheel and Axle Plant v. CCE, Bangalore -II wherein also the Tribunal has held that modvat credit is not required to be reversed under Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.