9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 75 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of duty on aluminium dross - whether Aluminium Dross emerging as product is excisable or otherwise - Held that - merely selling does not mean dross and skimming are marketable commodity as even rubbish can be sold. Everything which is sold is not necessarily a marketable commodity as known to commerce and which it may be worthwhile to trade in. - Issue has already been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI 2011 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI 2014 (12) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT on the similar issue allowed the appeal. The Hon ble High Court has set aside the Tribunal s order by relying Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Indian Aluminium & Co. 2006 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA And Grasim Industries Ltd. (2011 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Following these decisions, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Whether Aluminium Dross emerging as a product is excisable or not. Analysis: The appeal in question revolves around determining the excisability of Aluminium Dross as a product. The Hon'ble Tribunal, after dispensing with the stay application, proceeded to hear the main appeal. The appellant's counsel highlighted a previous Tribunal order in the appellant's favor, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in a similar case. The issue at hand was further clarified by referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in related cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI was particularly crucial in settling the issue. The judgment emphasized the importance of specific processes being declared as manufacture to attract excise duty, as per Section 2(f) of the Act. It was reiterated that goods must be manufactured in India to be subject to excise duty, as per established legal principles and previous court decisions. The Tribunal analyzed the process of repair and maintenance of machinery generating M.S. Scrap and Iron Scrap, emphasizing that these by-products did not contribute to the manufacturing process of the excisable end product, cement. The repairing activity was distinguished from manufacturing activity, indicating that the generated scraps were not a by-product of the final product. The Tribunal, in alignment with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncements, emphasized the conjunctive satisfaction of conditions under Section 2(d) and Section 2(f) for the imposition of excise duty. The judgment highlighted the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and criticized the Tribunal for disregarding established legal precedents. The impugned order was deemed perverse and vitiated by a legal error, leading to its quashing and setting aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay's judgment, upheld the validity of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision regarding the excisability of Aluminium Dross. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the stay application also being disposed of. The judgment reiterated the importance of adhering to established legal principles and respecting binding Supreme Court decisions in matters of excise duty imposition.
|
