Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2009 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (9) TMI 152 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
Challenge to letters/orders by Superintendent of Central Excise, classification of 'Aluminium Dross and Skimming' as excisable goods, interpretation of marketability for levy of excise duty, impact of explanation under Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act post-amendment.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash letters/orders from the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding 'Aluminium Dross and Skimming,' arguing they are not produced or manufactured, hence not subject to excise duty. Citing various Supreme Court decisions, petitioner's counsel contended that these materials arise unintentionally during the manufacturing process and do not qualify as excisable goods. The Finance Act, 2008 amended Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, deeming goods marketable if capable of being bought or sold, potentially impacting the classification of 'Aluminium Dross and Skimming.'

The counsel emphasized that despite the amendment, the materials in question are not processed or manufactured products but impurities formed during metal melting, not meeting the criteria for excise duty. The Superintendent's directive, based on the amended explanation, required proper invoicing for clearance of these materials post-19-8-2009. The petitioner argued that the amendment does not alter the established legal position that these materials are not marketable commodities and should not be subject to excise duty.

The Court noted the amendment's effect in deeming goods marketable and potentially liable for excise duty, especially if listed in the Schedule. The judgment highlighted the link between marketability and levy of excise duty, emphasizing that goods must be usable, saleable, and marketable to attract duty. The legislative change prompted orders for proper invoicing before clearance, aligning with the new definition of marketability under Section 2(d) post-amendment. Consequently, the Court declined to grant interim relief at that stage, considering the impact of the amended explanation on the classification and taxation of 'Aluminium Dross and Skimming.'

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the legal arguments, relevant precedents, statutory amendments, and the Court's interpretation regarding the classification and taxation of the materials in question.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates