2015 (1) TMI 541 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing process - Excisability of Aluminium Dross - Marketability - Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - following the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (2006 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) demand is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Excisability of "Aluminium Dross" generated during the manufacture of finished goods.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, delivered by Shri P.K. Das, addressed the issue of excisability of "Aluminium Dross" in appeals arising from a common order. The Ld. A.R for the Revenue argued that an amendment to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act was relevant, while the Ld. Advocate for the appellants contended that the appeals were prior to this amendment. Notably, Appeal No. E/40962/2014 was identified as post-amendment and was separated for further consideration. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., emphasizing the distinction between waste and scrap and a manufactured product.

The Tribunal referred to its previous Final Order No.1308/2006, where it had set aside a similar demand in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. case. Based on this precedent and the legal principles established, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order should be set aside. Consequently, Appeal Nos. E/40958-40961/2014 were allowed, providing consequential relief for the period before the amendment to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The stay applications were also disposed of in light of this decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of the manufacturing process and the specific characteristics required for an article to be considered excisable, aligning with established legal precedents and principles.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision in this case revolved around the excisability of "Aluminium Dross" and its classification as a manufactured product. By referencing relevant legal provisions and the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tribunal concluded that the demands should be set aside based on established principles and past decisions. The judgment emphasized the need for a transformative process in manufacturing to classify an article as excisable, providing clarity on the issue at hand and delivering a favorable decision for the appellants in this matter.