9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 461 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture or not - Aluminium dross and skimming arising out of the manufacture of aluminium motor vehicle parts - Applicability of explanation to section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no dispute prior to 2008 amendment. In the various judgments even after considering the amendment section 2(d) to Central Excise Act, 1944 it was held that no duty liability arise on the aluminium dross skimming generated unavoidably during the manufacture of aluminium products. Reliance placed in the Supreme Court judgement UNION OF INDIA VERSUS HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2019 (3) TMI 1933 - SC ORDER , where it was held that manufacture do not take place. The generation of aluminium dross and skimming in the manufacture of aluminium castings/parts of motor vehicles does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, it is not liable to duty. Time limitation - HELD THAT - Since the issue itself is not sustainable on merits, Revenue s appeal, which is on time-bar will also not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the aluminium dross and skimming arising out of the manufacture of aluminium motor vehicle parts amounts to manufacture and is liable to duty. 2. Whether the demand for the extended period is sustainable. 3. Whether the demand for the normal period is sustainable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Aluminium Dross and Skimming to Duty: The primary issue in this case was whether aluminium dross and skimming, by-products generated during the manufacture of aluminium motor vehicle parts, are considered excisable goods and thus liable to duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue's contention was based on the explanation inserted to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which interpreted that any product arising in the course of manufacture would be liable to duty. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including: - Hindalco Industries Ltd v. Union of India [2015 (315) ELT 10 (Bom.) affirmed by apex Court [2019 (367) ELT A246]: The Supreme Court held that dross and skimming are merely refuse or rubbish and cannot be considered as a new and different article emerging from the manufacturing process. The mere fact that such refuse may fetch some price in the market does not justify it being called a by-product or a finished product. - Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd v. Union of India [2014 (300) ELT 371 (All.)]: This judgment supported the view that aluminium dross and skimming are not liable to duty. - Union of India v. DFSCL Sugar Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC)]: Reiterated that waste products like dross and skimming are not excisable. - KEC International Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2016 (342) ELT 418 (Tri.-Mumbai)]: The Tribunal held that the duty liability on metal dross and skimming does not arise, aligning with the Hindalco judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the generation of aluminium dross and skimming in the manufacture of aluminium castings/parts of motor vehicles does not amount to manufacture and is not liable to duty. 2. Demand for the Extended Period: The Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand for the extended period, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal, following the judgments cited, particularly the Hindalco case, held that since the issue itself is not sustainable on merits, the extended period demand is also not sustainable. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 3. Demand for the Normal Period: The assessee had filed an appeal against the confirmation of the demand for the normal period. Given that the Tribunal found the issue of duty liability on aluminium dross and skimming unsustainable on merits, the demand for the normal period was also set aside. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the demand on merits, holding that aluminium dross and skimming generated during the manufacture of aluminium products are not excisable goods. Consequently, both the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The cross-objections were also disposed of accordingly.
|
