ORDER
S.S.Kang
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of detergent washing power and detergent cakes and they were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of final product. During the process of manufacture of final product, a bi-product, viz., spent sulphuric acid came into existence and the appellants were clearing the same at nil rate of duty under notification 4/94 dated 1.3.94 to the manufacturer of fertilizer. Duty was demanded under Rule 57CC of the Rules on spent sulphuric acid as the same was cleared at nil rate of duty. The demand was confirmed. Appellants filed an appeal and the same was rejected.
3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants produced a copy of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of their another unit whereby the demand of duty under Rule 57CC of the Rules on spent sulphuric acid, was dropped. This order-in-appeal was duly sent to the Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dated 1.2.2000. He submits that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of their another unit, was not taken into consideration while passing present impugned order whereby contrary decision was taken.
4. On merits, he submits that under Rule 57 CC of the Rules, a duty can be demanded where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of final product, which is chargeable to duty as well as any other final product which is exempted from payment of duty. Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants are manufacturing detergent powder and detergent cakes and they are not engaged in manufacturing the spent sulphuric acid. His submission is that the spent sulphuric acid is bi-product. Therefore, the provisions of rule 57CC of the Rules is not applicable in respect of clearance of spent sulphuric acid. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. Heard Id. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. In the present case, the contention of the appellants is that in respect of their other unit, the commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand on the clearance of spent sulphuric acid cleared at nil rate of duty. This order, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dated 1.2.2000. The Commissioner (Appeals), while deciding the present appeal had not taken into consideration this order, which is in favour of the appellants. As the submissions made by the appellants were not considered in respect of the same bi-product, I find that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice, hence set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (dictated in Court).