2014 (1) TMI 1105 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules red mud residue not excisable goods, emphasizing individual assessment

The Tribunal upheld the earlier finding that red mud residue is not excisable goods despite an amendment to the definition, emphasizing the need to assess ... Exisability of product - Residue emerged as red mud during manufacture of aluminium – Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that:- Assessee contended that the amendment does not deal with the issue of manufacture at all – Relying upon Commissioner of Central Excise Allahabad, UP Versus M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills [2012 (8) TMI 599 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - the amendment made in Section 2 (d) has been considered in the case and the Court ordered that ‘Bagasse’, which is a by-product similar to red mud, emerging in the manufacture of sugar is not excisable goods - The question whether residue and or a so called waste is a manufactured product or not is to be examined with reference to each product and there is already a finding of the Tribunal that red mud is not a manufactured item – there is no reason to upset the decision – thus, pre-deposits waived till the disposal – stay granted. Issues Involved: Determination of excisability of red mud residue in the context of the amended definition of excisable goods.Analysis:1. Issue 1 - Excisability of Red Mud Residue:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aluminum from Bauxite, faced a question regarding the excisability of red mud residue obtained during the manufacturing process. The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal decision had ruled red mud as not a manufactured product, which was not challenged. However, post an amendment to the definition of excisable goods, the Revenue contended that red mud now qualifies as excisable goods. The appellant emphasized that excisability hinges on both manufacture and marketability, citing a High Court case regarding a similar by-product. The Revenue argued that post-amendment, any product sold in the market automatically becomes excisable goods, citing relevant court decisions on similar by-products like Aluminum Dross and Skimming.2. Analysis of Arguments:The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments. While the Revenue highlighted the impact of the amendment on the excisability of red mud, the Tribunal emphasized the need to analyze each product individually. Referring to the previous finding that red mud is not a manufactured item, the Tribunal declined to overturn this decision based solely on the amended definition of excisable goods. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues from the impugned order for appeal admission, allowing a stay on collection during the appeal process.3. Conclusion:In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of evaluating whether a residue or waste qualifies as a manufactured product on a case-by-case basis. Despite the amendment to the excisable goods definition, the Tribunal upheld the earlier finding that red mud is not excisable, granting relief to the appellant in terms of pre-deposit waiver and stay on collection during the appeal period. This judgment clarifies the nuanced approach required in determining excisability, considering both manufacture and marketability aspects for each specific product.