TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/76154/2015 & C-O/75092/2016 - FO/A/76351/2018 - Dated:- 13-3-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI C.J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri A. K. Biswas, Supdt. (AR) for the Appellant (s) Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per CORAM: Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron classifiable under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2014 was issued alleging that the assessee had cleared 6939.980 M.T. of Solid Waste/ Bag Filter Dust during the period from August 2013 to May 2014 without paying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore bagasee, aluminum/ Zinc dross and such waste and scrap have been held as excisable w.e.f. 10.05.2008 vide C.B.E. C. curcular No. 904/24/2009-CX dated 28.10.2009. in this context, I find relevant the case law referred by the appellant in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (315) ELT 10 (Bom.) wherein Hon ble High Court of Mombay has set aside the order of the larger bench of CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, dated 19.08.2014 reported in 2014 (308) ELT 472 (Tri-LB) wherein the Tribunal held that Dross and skimming of aluminium, Zink or other non-ferrous metal-Emerging as by product during manufacture of aluminium / non-ferrous sheet/ foils and other products, and sold by assessee these were Manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Hon ble Bombay High Court would not help the assessee. We find that the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries (Supra) was passed after considering the amendment of Section 2(d) of the Act, 1994. It is also noted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Limited 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC), after considering the amendment of Section 2(d), had held that Bagasse is not excisable goods as there being no manufacturing process and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
