TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross contains 50% of the aluminium. The Revenue is not relying upon any other import made by other importers for the same goods during the same period. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted the fact that there was no reason given by the Adjudicating Authority for enhancement of the value. Further we find that the cost for extracting aluminium from dross cannot be equated with the cost of copper fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by the respondents. The respondent made import of aluminium dross and declared the value for assessment as US Dollar 420 per M.T. The value declared by the respondents is not accepted by the Revenue and the adjudicating authority has enhanced the value to US Dollar 787.300 per M.T. The adjudicating authority also held that the aluminium dross is liable for Additional Duty of Customs equal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the issue whether the aluminium dross is liable to central excise duty or not is now settled by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) where it has been held that zinc dross falling under same heading is not a manufactured product and hence not liable to excise duty. The Tribunal in the case of Vishal Pipe v. CCE reported in 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cost of copper from copper dross and that circular cannot be blindly applied. In these circumstances we find no reason to reject the transaction value as declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry in view of the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321. In view of the above discussion we find no impunity in the impugned order. Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
