9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were made out of indigenous raw material only. It is established by the appellant that they had no imports of raw material prior to 13/01/2004. The goods for DTA clearances now subject matter of dispute were made prior to that date. The demand for differential duty were sustained only on the ground that no separate accounts were maintained and the appellant failed to establish that the said items were manufactured only out of indigenous raw material. Considering the facts now pleaded by the appellant it is clear that no differential duty can be demanded as there was no import of raw materials prior to the date of manufacture of goods later cleared to DTA. These were earlier rejected/returned tripods. Though the appellant pleaded these grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability based on reduction in basic customs duty. 2. The appellant is in appeal against the above order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). They pleaded that the rejected tripods valued at ₹ 87,350/- were manufactured prior to first import of aluminium ingots on 13/01/2004. As there were no imports prior to that date all raw materials used were indigenous only in respect of rejected tripods manufactured prior to 23/05/2003. These were returned rejected stock from the foreign buyer. Hence it is apparent the tripods cleared in DTA were eligible for Notification No. 8/97-CE. 3. Regarding aluminium dust and slag the appellant pleaded that these were dross and skimming of aluminium taken out of molten aluminium as floating dust during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls prior to the date of manufacture of goods later cleared to DTA. These were earlier rejected/returned tripods. 7. Regarding duty liability on aluminium dust and slag, we agree with the contention of the appellant that these are not excisable commodities as they arise as dross and skimming during the course of manufacture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) is relied upon. Though the appellant pleaded these grounds before the lower authority no findings were given except the observation that the same is not subject matter of the instance case as the appellant themselves paid the duty without insistence by the Department. However, in the order duty on tripods and aluminium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
