TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/302/2010 - FO/A/77253/2018 - Dated:- 18-9-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL And SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Deepro Sen, Adv. Shri Rishi Raju, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (AR) for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per Bench: The issue involved in the instant appeal is whether aluminium dross and skimmings which is a waste product arising in the course of manufacture of aluminium products is liable to excise duty. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Aluminium products classifiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. Advocate also submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Ors. Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 769 (S.C.), has held that waste product/residue, which itself is not the result of any process, cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and in the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty. 4. It was further submitted that in view of the judgments in the case of M/s DSCL Sugar ltd. and M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. (Supra), a CBEC Circular bearing No. 1027/15/2016-CX, dated 25.04.2016 has been issued which has rescinded, inter alia earlier CBEC C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09, 941/02/2011-CX, dated 14.02.2011 and instruction issued vide F. No. 17/02/2009-CX (Pt.), dated 12.11.2014 have becom non est and are hereby rescinded. Cases kept in Call Book on the above issue may be taken out and adjudicated 5. The Ld. D.R. fairly concedes that the issue is now covered in favour of the Appellants. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble High Court of Bombay and also CBEC Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX, dated 25.04.2016, the issue now stands settled in favour of the Appellant as it becomes abundantly clear that Aluminium dross, being a waste product emerging during the manufacture of Aluminium products, cannot be subject to excise duty. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
