ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) – These are two appeals filed by the Revenue with reference to respective impugned orders involving common issue. They are therefore taken together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. The short point to be considered in this case is whether the Respondent, M/s. Astra Idl Ltd., has to pay Central Excise duty or reverse Modvat credit on the spent palladium.
3. Smt. Radha Arun, SDR, appearing for the Revenue submitted that the item in question is classifiable under Chapter 26 under sub-heading 26.20 of Central Excise Tariff. In this context, she drew our attention to the relevant grounds taken by the Department in the ‘Grounds of Appeal’ which is as under :
“The observation that classification of the product in Central Excise Tariff under which duty was demanded was not indicated cannot become a ground for deciding the issue whether duty was demandable on spent palladium. In fact, if there were any doubts about the rate of duty or the amount demanded, it could have been reconsidered by him after considering possible classifications e.g. under Chapter 26 under sub-heading 26.20 of Central Excise Tariff, Dropping the proceedings altogether mainly on the ground that the spent palladium admitted to be waste, are not excisable goods was not legal or proper.”
3. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents submitted that neither specific grounds were taken by the Department nor it was substantiated as to how the item is classifiable under Chapter 26.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the Respondent’s Counsel is right in pointing out that the Department has not substantiated the grounds as to how the item is classifiable under Chapter 26.
Apart from the above, no specific grounds in the appeal as can be seen from the Appeal Memo.
5. We find that the issue involved herein has been properly analysed by the Commissioner as per para 9 of the impugned order dated 28-8-97. The relevant para is as under –
Para 9 – “The short point for consideration is whether M/s. AIL have to pay Central Excise duty or reverse Modvat credit on the spent palladium. The submission of the assessee is that the spent palladium is not goods in terms of Section 2(d) of the CEA, 1944. I have considered the submission of the assessee. It is seen from the records that the Department has not come up with an acceptable evidence as to the classification of spent palladium. In the case of Mehta Vegetables Products v. CCE reported in [1997 (93) E.L.T. 229 (T)], the Hon’ble Tribunal has held that Spent Earth and Spent Nickel catalyst emerging as residue do not arise out of manufacture and are not excisable goods in terms of Section 2(d), 2(f) and 3 of CEA, 1944. Since the investigation itself has not brought the spent palladium under any of the Chapter headings, I am afraid duty cannot be demanded on the same.”
Since the issue involved herein has been properly analysed by the Commissioner as can be seen above, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, these two appeals are dismissed accordingly.