GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s, Grasim Industries Ltd., is whether the gas left in tanks, pipe -line, tanner is sniff gas or waste chlorine.

(2.) 1 Learned Advocate submitted that the process of manufacture of liquid Chlorine is complete only when the liquid Chlorine is filled in chlorine cylinders; that accordingly Residual Chlorine gas which is contaminated emerges in the production of liquid Chlorine only; that it is basically a waste gas, and therefore, it is a sniff gas and is squarely covered by the Board's , dated 21 -3 -88; that it has been clarified in the said Circular that sniff gas is a waste and not a goods as such sniff gas is also reported to be incapable of being sold; that the Board, therefore, clarified that sniff gas is not excisable. The learned Advocate also relied upon the following technical books in support of his contention that sniff gas arises during the filling of toners which is to be neutralized by treating with Alkali to make Sodium Chloride : -

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri Jagdish Singh, learned D.R., submitted that before the liquidification of wet chlorine gas, some impure gases along with some quantity of Chlorine gas is neutralized either by lime or by Caustic Soda; that this impure mixture emerges before the liquidification of Chlorine gas and is termed as sniff gas or waste chlorine gas; that the Board's Circular No. 2/88 relates to such sniff gas which emerges during the manufacture of liquid chlorine and not after liquefied Chlorine is filled in the tanks/toners. He, therefore, submitted that impugned gas is nothing but compressed gas which is chargeable to duty as the same is used in the manufacture of Sodium Hypochloride which is exempted from whole of the duty.