Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether zinc dross arising during galvanization is a manufactured product and excisable goods liable to central excise duty despite the specific tariff entry and the amended definition of excisable goods.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the process by which zinc dross arose during galvanization amounted to manufacture and whether the product, being separately sold as slabs/ingots, became excisable merely because it was specifically mentioned in the tariff and could be bought and sold. The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate bench view and the decisions relied upon therein, holding that the amendments to the tariff and to the definition of excisable goods did not alter the position that zinc dross arising as a by-product in galvanization is not a manufactured product. Marketability alone was held insufficient where the activity did not amount to manufacture.
Conclusion: Zinc dross cleared by the assessee is not excisable and is not liable to central excise duty.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand was unsustainable and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, resulting in allowance of the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: A by-product arising during galvanization does not become excisable merely because it is specifically listed in the tariff or is marketable unless the process results in manufacture of goods.