ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The facts of the case are briefly as stated below :-
The appellants are manufacturers of V.P. Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are, availing the Modvat credit facility in respect of inputs under Rule 57 A of the, Central Excise Rules, 1944. They cleared certain quantity of pressmud from their factory without payment of Central Excise duty .’They were asked by the Department to show cause why Central Excise duty @ 8% of the value of the . pressmud cleared by them as aforesaid should not be recovered from them under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants, in reply to the show, cause notice, pleaded inter alia that no Central Excise duty was leviable on the pressmud under the provisions of Rule 57CC ibid as the said goods was only a waste/refuse arising during the manufacture of sugar and not a final product ‘ attracting the provisions of the said Rule. The jurisdictional Assistant Com- ‘ missioner of Central Excise adjudicated the show cause notice confirming the ‘ demand of Rs. 77,363/- as raised in the show cause notice as Central Excise duty on the total quantity of pressmud cleared by the party during November/” 19% and during the period December, 1996 to April, 1997. In the appeal filed against this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority holding that’, pressmud was recognised as a final product in the Central Excise Tariff Act” and hence attracted the provisions of Rule 57CC ibid. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. It is brought to my notice that appeal has yet to be admitted.
2. I have carefully examined the orders of both the lower authorities and connected records of the case and I have also heard Shri Alok Arora learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned JDR for the respondent/ Revenue. The issue involved is very much arguable. Therefore I am inclined to admit the appeal and dispose of the same finally.
3. The learned Advocate has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is whether pressmud is an excisable final product attracting the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules and that the said issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shanker Sugar Mills v. C.C.E., Allahabad 1998 (100) E.L.T. 151 (T), which has been followed, of late, by the Tribunal in the case of Titawai Sugar Complex v. C.C.E., Meerut [Appeal No. E/549/99-NB] as per Final Order No. A/1038/ 99-NB, dated 24-9-1999;
4. I have perused both the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned Advocate and I find that in both the decisions, pressmud has been held to be not marketable and hence not excisabale under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Following the said decision of the Tribunal, I hold that the pressmud cleared by the appellants was only a waste and not an excisable final product attracting the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules and, therefore, there was no question of levy of Central Excise duty on the said goods under Rule 57CC ibid. The learned JDR, who has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, has not brought to my notice any authority holding to the contrary on the issue involved.
5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is only liable to be set aside. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefits to the appellants.