Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1987 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (7) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Whether Aluminium Dross and Skimmings are dutiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Analysis: The Department filed an Appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the dutiability of Aluminium Dross and Skimmings under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector initially held that these products are dutiable under Item 68, but the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that Dross and Skimmings are by-products of the manufacturing process and do not result in a new article, thus exempt from duty under Item 68. Shri J.N. Nigam, representing the Department, argued that the amendment to Tariff Item 27 and the addition of an explanation under the Finance Act, 1981, make Dross and Skimmings liable to duty under Item 68. He cited relevant case laws and decisions, emphasizing that these products are incidental to the manufacturing process and should attract duty. On the other hand, Shri Khaitan, counsel for the Respondents, relied on a Tribunal decision where it was held that Aluminium Dross and Skimmings do not qualify as "goods," supporting the argument that they are not liable to duty. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and referenced previous decisions. It noted that consistent rulings have held that Dross and Skimmings are not dutiable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar case involving Indian Aluminium Company, stating that the general observations of other courts do not override specific decisions on the excisability of these products. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the previous rulings and rejected the Department's Appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions regarding the excisability of Dross and Skimmings, based on the interpretation of relevant laws and precedents. The Appeal was ultimately rejected, affirming that Aluminium Dross and Skimmings are not liable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
|