Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 956 - AT - Central ExciseConflicting views in different decisions of the same Tribunal - Clandestine Removal of goods – Assessee manufactured aluminium dross and skimmings – Activity manufacture or not - Held that:- In Bhushan Steel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2013 (4) TMI 158 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] – it was held that Notwithstanding the addition of Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Central Excise Act, since the Zinc Dross is not a manufactured product, it cannot be considered as an excisable product thus, they are not liable to duty – and in KEC International Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2012 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] – in view of the addition of Explanation to Section 2 (d), Zinc Dross is to be deemed as 'marketable' and, therefore, they have to be considered as excisable goods and liable to excise duty - There are conflicting decisions to two Benches of the Tribunal, the matter should be placed before a larger Bench of the Tribunal for resolution of the conflicting views. - matter referred to larger bench.
|