NEW SHARROCK MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals, one filed by the appellant and other by the Revenue are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), vide which, on one hand, he has rejected the appellant's refund claim on merits and on the other hand remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re -examination of the claim on the point of unjust enrichment on the ground that the goods, in respect of which refund claim was made, were being used captively in the process of textiles and there was no stage of passing on the burden of duty to the customer.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Prakash Shah, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. DR for the Revenue.

(3.) THE appellants main contention is that the process of concentration by evaporation of water cannot be held to be process of manufacture so as to make recovered caustic soda liable to duty. Mere existence of Notification No. 191/68 -Central Excise, upto a certain period and subsequent withdrawal by the same will not, by itself, confer the status of manufacture to the recovery process, if the same cannot be independently considered as manufacture. It has also been argued that they started with caustic soda and through the intermediate process of emergence of spent caustic soda lye, recovered caustic soda only. As such, the starting material and the final material being the same i.e. caustic soda, it cannot be said that any manufacture resulting in emergence of new product has taken place. It is their contention that caustic soda recovered from the lye is already duty paid caustic soda received by them initially. For the above proposition, reliance has been placed upon various decisions of the judicial as also quasi judicial authorities.