ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against OIA No. 16/2003-C.E., dated 21-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The spent methanol had not been accounted in the excise registers and hence proceedings were initiated for recovery of duty on the said spent methanol. The assessee had taken a view that spent methanol is a industrial waste and not goods and hence accounting in RG 1 register does not arise. Learned Commissioner has accepted this plea. I have heard learned SDR and have perused the records. After due consideration, I am of the view that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is just legal and proper. The Commissioner has noted that when the department had not prescribed any register for accounting in-process material, the allegation that the assessee had not properly accounted for, appears to be superfluous. She has noted that Rules 53, 173G and 226 of C.E. Rules, 1944 pertain to finished goods/goods to which maintenance of records has been prescribed, but not to in-process material. She has also noted that the department had not produced any evidence to contradict the claim of the assessee that the in-process material had not yet acquired the character of or reached the stage of industrial waste. The finding recorded is correct. There is no way to take a different view from the one expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in Open Court)