2013 (4) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Excise Duty - Manufacture - Clearance of Dross arising during the galvanization - by-product or not - Held that - We find that excisability of Zinc Dross was examined by this Tribunal in the case of Vishal Pipes (2010 (4) TMI 314 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) for the period after both the amendments of 2005 and 2008 as period of demand in that case was March, 2005 to October, 2008 - We also find that Tribunal in the case of Vishal Pipes relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. (2006 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and TISCO (2004 (2) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has taken a view that Zinc Dross is not excisable goods. We, therefore, following the decision of coordinate Bench hold that Zinc Dross cleared by the appellant is not excisable product and hence not liable to duty - The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal are set aside - the appeals are allowed in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether Zinc Dross arising as a by-product during the process of galvanization is a manufactured product liable to Central Excise duty.
2. Interpretation of specific entry in the Tariff and the amendment in the definition of "Excisable goods" in relation to Zinc Dross.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved appeals by a company manufacturing excisable goods availing CENVAT Credit, challenged for clearing Zinc Dross without duty payment. The Revenue contended Zinc Dross was excisable based on specific Tariff entry and the process undertaken. The appellant argued the process did not amount to manufacture, citing relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal referred to its prior decisions and held that Zinc Dross arising during galvanization was not a manufactured product, thus not liable for duty.

Issue 2:
The Revenue argued that post-amendments in the Tariff and the definition of "Excisable goods," Zinc Dross fell under excisable goods. However, the Tribunal, referencing the Vishal Pipes case for the post-amendment period, relied on Supreme Court decisions to rule that Zinc Dross was not excisable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues of whether Zinc Dross is a manufactured product liable for duty and the interpretation of the Tariff entry and definition amendments. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and prior rulings, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the excisability of Zinc Dross.