9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 falling under Chapter Heading No. 76 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the process of manufacture of Aluminium products, Aluminium dross and skimmings were produced and the same were cleared without payment of duty being waste products. Show Cause Notices for consecutive periods were issued to the Appellant seeking recovery of duty on clearance of Aluminium Dross on the ground that the same was excisable as Aluminium Dross was marketable in terms of the explanation added to section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (w.ef. 10.05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscated and a penalty of INR 4,000/- was imposed. OIO was confirmed vide OIA No. 88-90/CE/ALLD./2011 dated 30.06.2011. 4. E/2323/2011 (Hindalco Industries) SCN No. VI(MP) Dem (12) Adj-02/2010/4142 dated 9.03.2010 was issued for an amount of INR 26,33,781 for the period from July 2009 to 22.10.2009 OIO No. MP (Dem-32/2010) 62/2010 dated 12.08.2010 was passed wherein the entire demand was confirmed OIA No. 88-90/CE/APPL/ALLD./2011 dated 30.06.2011 was passed wherein the OIO was confirmed. SUBMISSIONS 3. It is most humbly submitted by Counsel that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled in favour of the Appellant by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the Appellant's own case - Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue under dispute. Following circulars/instruction have been issued from time to time on the subject:- (a) Circular No. 904/24/2009-CX, dated 28-10-2009 [2009 (243) E.L.T. T9)] (b) Circular No. 941/02/2011-CX, dated 14-2-2011 [2011 (264) E.L.T. (T21)], (c) Instruction F. No. 17/02/2009-CX (Pt.), dated 12-11-2014 [2014 (309) E.L.T. (T16)]. 2. The issue came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of M/s Union of India and Ors. Vs. M/s DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX = 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)], dated 15-7-2015. Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue and reaffirmed that bagasse is not a manufactured product. The Judgement applies to both periods, before and after the insertion of explanation in Section 2 (d) of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
