9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1398 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Excise Duty/Excisability - Galvanized parts of Transmission Line Towers - scope of excisable goods in terms of Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The question of duty liability on Aluminium/Zinc Dross has been a subject matter of decision in the appellant's own case KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR 2016 (12) TMI 1317 - CESTAT MUMBAI by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2014 (12) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , held that the appellants are not liable to duty on such items. There are no merit in the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur's order regarding liability to pay duty on zinc dross/ash cleared without payment of duty.
Summary: 1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Galvanized parts of Transmission Line Towers, faced a dispute regarding their liability to pay duty on zinc dross/ash emerging during manufacture. The dispute arose from the amendment in the definition of "excisable goods" in the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a circular by C.B.E. & C. clarifying the marketability of waste products. The proceedings resulted in the confirmation of demand for excise duty and imposition of a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was noted that the duty liability on Aluminium/Zinc Dross had been previously decided in the appellant's favor by the Tribunal in a separate case. Citing the Tribunal's decision and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling, it was concluded that the appellants were not liable to duty on such items. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. (Order pronounced on 28-10-2016)
|
