Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Raipur Versus M/s Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.

2015 (10) TMI 1357 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand - Marketability of goods - Whether the aluminium dross and skimming arising in course of manufacture of aluminium products during the period of dispute would attract Central Excise duty - Held that:- No such evidence of existence of market for aluminium dross and skimming, like prices of this item being quoted in commercial journals and news papers, existence of persons selling this product or e-commence websites for sale of Aluminium dross and skimming etc. has been produced. We als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order is correct. In terms of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 of the Tariff, heading 26.20 applies only to that ash and residue which are used in the industry for extraction of metal or as starting material for manufacture of metal compounds. Such ash and residues would, obviously, be marketable as there would be demand for the same from metal extraction and chemical industry. But in this regard, no evidence in form of evidence of end use of the dross for extraction of Aluminium or for manufacture .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Central Excise Tariff. In course of manufacture of aluminium products, aluminium dross and skimming arises which is covered by sub-heading 2620.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondent were selling the aluminium dross and skimming without payment of duty. The Department was of the view that the aluminium dross and skimming being covered by heading 2620.00 of the Central Excise Tariff is excisable goods as the same are specifically covered by heading 2620.00 and are marketable. It i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. However, no penalty was imposed. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 18/1/06 following the Apex court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.) set aside the Additional Commissioner s order holding that the aluminium dross and skimming emerging in process of production of aluminium are not marketable goods. Against this order of the Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

during that period the aluminium dross and skimming were classified under Tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff pertaining to goods not elsewhere specified while during the period of dispute, there is a heading 2620.00 specifically covering the ash and residue (other than, from manufacture of iron and steel) containing metals , that, beside this, during period of dispute, there is Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 which mentions that the heading 2620 applies only to, ash and residue of a kind u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aluminium ingots, the dispute in the present case is in respect of dross and skimming which arise in course of manufacture of aluminium from alumina by electrolysis process and in the dross and skimming arising in the present case the metal content is much higher, that the dross and skimming arising in this case are marketable which is evident from the fact that the same were being regularly sold by the respondent, at the price ranging from ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 22,000/- per MT which is c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the respondent during the period from June 2003 to March 2005 also indicated that the aluminium dross and skimming were being sold regularly at the prices varying from 20,000 per MT to 22,000 per MT which clearly indicates that the market for this product existed. 3. Shri Udit Jain, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the point of dispute in this case stands decided by the Apex court s judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable, that Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur, Mumbai III reported in 2014 (308) E.L.T. 472 (Tri. LB) has held that aluminium dross and skimming arising as by-product in course of manufacture of aluminium products would be excisable goods w.e.f. 10/5/08 in view of explanation added to Section 2 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944, as they are covered by heading 2620 and are regularly bought and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 (300) E.L.T. 372 (All.), wherein Hon ble Allahabad High Court in respect of period w.e.f. 10/5/08 held that bagasse arising as an inevitable by-product in course of crushing of sugarcane in course of manufacture of sugar is not marketable even though it is regularly bought and sold, and that the ratio of this judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Shri Jain pointed out to the observations of Hon ble Bombay High Court in para 21 and 22 of the j .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the sides and perused the records. 5. The only point of dispute in the present case is as to whether the aluminium dross and skimming arising in course of manufacture of aluminium products during the period of dispute would attract Central Excise duty. There is no dispute that heading 2620 covers Slag, ash and resident (other than from manufacture of iron and steel) containing mainly zinc, lead, copper, aluminium and specifically covers aluminium dross. The dispute is only as to whether the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such dross and skimming was sought to be taxed under Tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and during the period of dispute there was a specific heading 2620 covering the dross and skimming of Aluminium, just because a particular product is covered by a tariff entry, it would not imply that the same is excisable, as for treating the goods as excisable the same must be goods , that is, the same must be marketable and the Apex court in the above-mentioned judgment, which is relied upon by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version