2015 (8) TMI 197 - SC - Central Excise

Duty demand - Duty on aluminium dross and aluminium ash that arises during the manufacture of die-casting of aluminium parts - Held that - CESTAT s later judgment 2008 (1) TMI 869 - CESTAT MUMBAI in the appellant s case itself, clinches the issue. In the decision, the CESTAT has held that during the manufacture of die-casting of aluminium parts, dross and ash emerge as by-products and, therefore, insofar as these by-products are concerned, no manufacturing process is involved and on that basis, it has held that no excise duty shall be payable thereupon. It is pertinent to mention that this decision has been accepted by the Revenue - Accordingly, the impugned order of the CESTAT is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Confirmation of duty on aluminium dross and ash arising during the manufacture of die-casting of aluminium parts.

Detailed Analysis:
The main issue in this case pertains to the confirmation of duty on the aluminium dross and ash that arises during the manufacturing process of die-casting of aluminium parts. The appellants supplied aluminium ingots to a job worker who then manufactured the parts by melting the aluminium and die-casting the same. The contention of the Revenue was that the aluminium ash and dross arising during this process are liable for payment of excise duty. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the Revenue's contention, holding the assessee liable to pay duty on the aluminium ash and dross.

The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that for a product to be excisable to duty, two conditions must be satisfied: the product must come into existence through a manufacturing process as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, and the product must be marketable. The appellants cited the judgment in 'Union of India and others v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and another' [1995 Supp (2) SCC 465] to support their argument that the aluminium ash and dross were by-products of the manufacturing process of die-casting of aluminium parts. They also highlighted that CESTAT itself accepted in a previous decision that the appellant's case was covered by the judgment in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.'s case.

Upon hearing the arguments from both parties, the Supreme Court examined a later judgment by CESTAT in the appellant's case, dated 23.01.2008, in Appeal No. E/3182/01, which clarified the issue. In this decision, CESTAT held that during the manufacturing process of die-casting of aluminium parts, dross and ash emerge as by-products. Consequently, as no manufacturing process is involved in the creation of these by-products, CESTAT ruled that no excise duty shall be payable on them. Notably, this decision was accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of CESTAT and allowed the appeals without any costs.