Bharucha, J. - (1.) The appellants manufacture nylon yarn using a raw material known as caprolactam. The raw material is subjected to polymerisation. This is a reversible process. After ploymerisation the resultant poly-caprolactam is spun to obtain nylon yarn. Waste in solid form containing poly-caprolactam is obtained at various stages of the process of manufacture. To fully use caprolactam, which is expensive and duty paid, the appellants have installed equipment by which caprolactam is recovered from the aforementioned waste and re-cycled into the process. The Excise authorities sought to treat the process of separation of capro´lactam from the waste as an independent manufacturing process, and subjected it to duty. The claim of the appellants for refund of such duty was rejected. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, as did the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
(2.) Caprolactam in flakes is used as the original raw material. The caprolactam that is recovered from the waste as aforestated is in molten form and, according to the appellants, not a saleable commodity. The Tribunal in the principal judgment (in C. A. No. 4173-74 of 1984) came to the conclusion that caprolactam was manufactured when recovered from waste. It observed that the contention that "the recovered caprolactam is not bought and sold, even if true, cannot negate manufacture. When the tariff itself had specified caprolactam as an assessable product. It cannot be of any consequence that once it is manufactured it is not bought and sold in the market." In the subsequent matters under appeal, the Tribunal followed this judgment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant drew out attention to the subsequent judgments of the Tribunal in Jagatjit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1990) 50 ELT 879, and LML Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1992) 59 ELT 82. In both cases the Tribunal was concerned with facts identical to those involved in the appeals before us and, very rightly, recognised the importance of the marketability of the product for the purpose of levy of excise duty. The order of the Collector which was in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of Jagatjit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. had followed the Tribunal"s decision which is in appeal before us. In the case of L.M.L. Ltd. counsel on behalf of the Excise authorities had cited to the Tribunal its decision which is in appeal before us.;