2018 (9) TMI 1650 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Red Mud collected as a residue - whether classified as product classifiable under heading 26219000 of CET Act, 1985 or otherwise? - Held that - This issue is no more res integra as the same is covered by the decision of this very Bench in the appellant s own cases M/S. THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM 2017 (12) TMI 1610 - CESTAT CHENNAI for earlier periods wherein the Bench has held in favor of the appellants - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of Red Mud under CET Act, 1985; Excisability of Red Mud as a manufactured product; Marketability of Red Mud as excisable goods; Application of penalties under CEA, 1944.

Classification of Red Mud under CET Act, 1985:
The appellants, who were manufacturers of Aluminium from Bauxite ore, were faced with Show Cause Notices regarding the classification of Red Mud under heading 26219000 of the CET Act, 1985. The lower authorities considered Red Mud to be a manufactured product, leading to demands for duties and penalties under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands and penalties, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal.

Excisability of Red Mud as a manufactured product:
The appellant argued that Red Mud should not be classified as excisable goods, citing precedents such as the Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. case and judgments from the Apex Court and Bombay High Court. They contended that Red Mud is a waste/residue and not a manufactured commodity, lacking marketability to qualify as excisable goods. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the issue had been settled in their favor in previous cases.

Marketability of Red Mud as excisable goods:
The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and previous decisions, found that the issue was no longer open to debate, as it had been resolved in the appellant's favor in earlier cases. Referring to its own decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals. The Tribunal concluded that Red Mud did not meet the criteria to be classified as excisable goods under the CET Act, 1985.

Application of penalties under CEA, 1944:
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order also impacted the application of penalties under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. By ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing the appeals, the Tribunal effectively nullified the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal's decision marked a significant victory for the appellants in challenging the classification and excisability of Red Mud, leading to the reversal of demands and penalties previously imposed.