2018 (7) TMI 1586 - AT - Central Excise

Waste - liability of excise duty - Aluminium Dross & Skimmings arising as waste in the manufacture of Aluminium Alloy Bars, Aluminium Notch Bars and Shorts - Held that - There is no justification for charging excise duties on Aluminium Dross and Skimming. Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 2014 (12) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that It cannot be said that dross and skimmings are transformation resulting in a new and different article with a distinctive name, character or use or that they ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold and are known to the market and cannot be held as excisable. CBEC has also changed its stand by following the decision of the Bombay High Court. The earlier circular suggesting that duty was payable on such Aluminium Dross and Skimming stand withdrawn. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Excisability of Aluminium Dross and Skimming
- Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and circulars

Excisability of Aluminium Dross and Skimming:
The case involved a dispute regarding the excisability of Aluminium Dross and Skimming generated during the manufacturing process of Aluminium Alloy Bars. The lower authorities had imposed excise duty on the Dross and Skimming, leading to a duty demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant challenged this demand, citing a favorable decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case. The appellant argued that subsequent to this decision, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) had issued a circular withdrawing earlier circulars that supported the imposition of duty on such waste materials. The appellant contended that based on these developments, no excise duty was payable on Aluminium Dross and Skimming. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) justified the imposition of excise duty, asserting that the Dross and Skimming were used for extracting Aluminium and thus should not be considered waste. After considering the submissions and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the High Court had overruled a previous decision by the Cestat Larger Bench. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's attempt to impose duty on the Dross and Skimming was contrary to the binding judgments of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's analysis and conclusions were found to be in conflict with established legal principles. Additionally, the CBEC had changed its stand in line with the Bombay High Court's decision, withdrawing the earlier circular supporting duty on Aluminium Dross and Skimming. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for charging excise duties on these waste materials, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and circulars:
The judgment extensively analyzed the legal precedents, focusing on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and its impact on the excisability of Aluminium Dross and Skimming. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following binding judgments, especially those of the Supreme Court, in determining excisability. The Tribunal emphasized that the Tribunal's analysis must align with established legal principles and precedents set by higher courts. The withdrawal of the circular supporting duty on the waste materials by the CBEC further reinforced the Tribunal's decision to set aside the duty demand. The judgment underscored the significance of legal consistency and adherence to authoritative pronouncements in resolving excise duty disputes. By meticulously examining the legal precedents and circulars, the Tribunal reached a well-founded conclusion that upheld the appellant's contention and provided relief by allowing the appeal.