2011 (10) TMI 536 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - we have found prima facie case for the appellant. Apparently, they did not intentionally manufacture zinc dross. When tower parts were dipped in molten zinc, they became galvanized through coating of zinc. In this process, a part of molten zinc got in contact with air at high temperature and got oxidized. When the oxidized material was cooled to the room temperature, it became what is called zinc dross . In the light of the decisions cited by learned counsel, this material prima facie cannot be considered to have been manufactured by the appellant. Though the appellant concedes that it is a marketable commodity, they appear to have a valid point in their submission that it is not a manufactured product. Hence there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty of excise demanded on the said commodity and also in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellant - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty demanded on 'zinc dross' generated during the manufacture of galvanized tower parts.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding duty demanded on 'zinc dross' generated during the manufacturing process. The appellant argued that although 'zinc dross' was marketable, it did not meet the criteria of being 'manufactured' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the appellant contended that excise duty could only be imposed when the goods satisfied both Section 2(d) and Section 2(f) requirements conjunctively. The appellant asserted that 'zinc dross' did not fulfill the conditions of 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f), thus excise duty should not be levied on it.

2. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and found a prima facie case in favor of the appellant. It was observed that 'zinc dross' was inadvertently produced during the galvanization process of tower parts in the factory. The oxidization of molten zinc resulted in the formation of 'zinc dross,' which, although marketable, did not meet the criteria of being 'manufactured' as per Section 2(f) of the Act. Relying on the cited decisions and the arguments presented, the Tribunal agreed that the appellant had a valid point in asserting that 'zinc dross' should not be considered a 'manufactured' product. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty of excise demanded on 'zinc dross' and the penalty imposed on the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the case involving 'zinc dross' generated during the manufacturing process of galvanized tower parts.