9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HON BLE MR C J MATHEW , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) And HON BLE MR AJAY SHARMA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Ms Payal Nahar , Advocate for the appellant Shri Amrendra Kumar Jha , Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) for the respondent ORDER PER : C J MATHEW The issue for consideration in this appeal of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of aluminum sheets and coils, is the leviability of duty under Central Excise Act, 1944 on aluminum dross and skimming generated while processing aluminum ingots in their facility. The order [order-in-original no. Belapur/94-95/Taloja/R-III/COMMR/KA/ 2013-14 dated 30th September 2013] of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Belapur has confirmed demand of ₹ 55,54,467 and ₹ 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69 (SC)], nothing survives for consideration in these Special Leave Petitions and the Civil Appeal. The Special Leave Petitions and the Civil Appeal are dismissed accordingly. It was further submitted that, relying on the aforesaid decisions, the Tribunal, in dispute for the period May 2008 to December 2011 at the Taloja unit and Daheli unit, had, in Hindalco Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai and another [2022 (12) TMI 1295 CESTAT MUMBAI], set aside the demands. 3. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative. 4. As the issue, dealt with in appeals carried upto the Hon ble Supreme Court and noted by the Tribunal in re Hindalco Industries Ltd thus 4. It is seen from the decision of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the same controversy. So long as there are Supreme Court Judgments in the field, we do not see how the Revenue could have proceeded to disregard them. 22. That the Revenue does not wish to abide by them would not mean that the Tribunal is justified in not following them. We find that the attempt made by the Tribunal to hold that what is marketable and satisfies the requirement stipulated in the Explanation necessarily means that they are liable for imposition of duty under Section 3 is directly contrary to the binding Judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the same issue. The attempt of the Tribunal in para 6.5 in proceeding to analyse that the process and concluding that nobody deliberately manufactures waste, dross and scrap is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusions would go to show that the Tribunal does not dispute that it is considering the same controversy and in relation to the same aluminium dross, which could be termed as either a by-product or waste or scrap or rubbish. Once there are twin tests, then, all these observations are of no assistance to the Revenue. The reliance placed by Mr. Sethna on a Judgment in the case of this very Assessee rendered by the Allahabad High Court 2009 (243) ELT 481 (All.) is entirely misplaced. There the argument was that the Writ Petition has been admitted and therefore, a interim order be passed so as to restrain the Department/Revenue from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner Hindalco Industries Ltd. including seizure and clearance of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person in the position and as an adjudicating body could have reached. Its order passed on 19th August, 2014 and applied to the Petitioner s case is quashed and set aside. 5. In the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in their own matter on the very same impugned goods, which was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindalco Industries Limited - 2019 (367) ELT A246 (SC)] holding that In view of the decision in Union of India v. DSCL Sugar Ltd., 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.), nothing survives for consideration in these Special Leave Petitions and the Civil Appeal. The Special Leave Petitions and the Civil Appeal are dismissed accordingly. the impugned orders do not survive and acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
