ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. These are two appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Norma Detergents Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved with the two different Order-in-Appeals dated 26-3-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad.
2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that the spent acid was a by-product arising during the sulphonation process of LAB or Nitro Benzene. He had also held that the claim of the assessees for the benefit of Notification No. 81/75- C.E. was not sustainable. He had also denied the benefit of modvat credit on the ground that the Spent Acid was not the sulphuric acid. As both the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Norma Detergent Pvt. Ltd. arise out of the same order-in-appeal, they are taken-up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. When the matter was called, Shri Randhir Singh, Proxy Counsel submitted that this matter is to be argued by Shri Ramesh Singh, Advocate, who is not well and he prayed for adjournment.
4. Shri Ravinder Babu, JDR submits that these matters were being kept pending awaiting the Larger Bench decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Keti Chemicals and Ors. and that the Tribunal’s decision has already been rendered on 2-7-1999. He submitted that the matter is entirely covered by the aforesaid Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision and there was no ground for adjournment. We find that this is a very old matter in which the dispute relates to the classification list filed in the year 1990. The or-der-in-original was passed in the year 1991 and the order-in-appeal was passed in the year 1992. As the matter appears to be covered by the Larger Bench decision referred to by the ld. JDR, we are not inclined to adjourn these matters and reject the prayer for adjournment. We proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Ravinder Babu, JDR.
5. We find that two issues raised before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) were one relating to the fact whether the Spent Acid was a manufactured product classifiable either under sub-heading No. 38.23 or heading No. 28.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. The second issue related to the modvat credit. We find that both the issues had been dealt with by the Tribunal in the Larger Bench decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Keti Chemicals and Ors. – Order No. 52/99C, dated 2-7-1999 1999 (113) E.L.T. 689 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had held that the spent sulphuric acid was a manufactured product and was classifiable under Heading No. 28.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. With regard to the second issue of Modvat Credit, the Tribunal had decided in favour of the assessee holding that the manufacturers were eligible to avail of the modvat credit of the duty paid on the entire quantity of sulphuric acid used. The Tribunal had relied upon the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Varuna Sulphonators Pvt. Ltd. – 1993 (68) E.L.T. 42. As the matter on both the counts is covered by the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, respectfully following the same, we hold that the spent acid was a manufactured product and was classifiable under Heading No. 28.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. The assessees were eligible to the modvat credit on the entire quantity of sulphuric acid used in the production of spent acid.
6. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.