ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Tress-mud’ is liable to Excise duty.
2. Shri Hitesh Shah, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents Keshorai Patan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. manufacture sugar; that the Press-mud is one of the by-product which is obtained during the manufacture of sugar; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 39/2001, directed the Respondents to pay Central Excise duty and imposed penalty on the ground that they had cleared Press-mud without payment of duty; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent holding that the demand was confirmed under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the payment of amount @ 8% under the said Rule does not arise when some waste come into being and is cleared as non-excisable product. He, further, submitted that Press-mud is a by-product which is chargeable to Excise duty being classifiable under Heading 23.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the Respondents had manufactured two products namely, Sugar and Press-mud and as Press-mud was un-conditionally exempt from payment of duty they are liable to pay an amount equal to 8% of the price of Press-mud at the time of its clearance in terms of provision of Rule 57CC. Finally, he submitted that as the product is covered by Heading 23.01 it is an excisable product. He relied upon the decision in the case of Ashish Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Goa, 1999 (106) E.L.T. 269 (Tri.) wherein it was held that when sub-heading 72.15 of the Tariff clearly speaks of breaking up of ships as an excisable event no argument that the said activity is not manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act can be accepted.
3. The Respondents have submitted written submissions in which they have mentioned that they have brought the inputs for the manufacture of Sugar and not Press-mud; that Press-mud is merely a by-product and accordingly Rule 57CC will not be applicable. It has also been mentioned by them that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shanker Sugar Mills v. C.C.E, Allahabad, 1998 (100) E.L.T. 151 has held that Press-mud which is a residue left in the manufacture of Sugar is not marketable and hence not excisable.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue involved in the present matter stands decided by the decision of the Tribunal
in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 668, relied upon by the Respondents. It has been held by the Tribunal in this case that the Press-mud is only a waste and not excisable final product attracting the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Rules. Similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 454. Further, we also observe that Press-mud being a residue cannot be called a final product in respect of which inputs have been used so as to attract the provision of Rule 57CC. Rule 57D(1) clearly provided at the material time that Credit of a specified duty shall not be denied or varied on the ground that part of the inputs is contained in any waste, refuse or by product arising during the manufacture of final product. Following the earlier decision passed by this Tribunal we find no merit in the Revenue’s appeal which is rejected.