TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondents. [Order per : M. Santhanam, Member (J)]. - The Department has filed this Appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 11-2-1983. The point at dispute in the present case is whether Aluminium Dross and Skimmings would attract duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector held that Aluminium Dross and Skimmings are dutiable under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince Dross and Skimmings have been set out in the Explanation, duty under Item 68 would be attracted. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works [1985 (20) E.L.T. 222]. The argument was that Dross and Skimmings are incidental products arising in the manufacture of aluminium sheets and duty liability cannot be avoided. He also relied on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minium Dross and Skimmings are not "goods". He urged that since it is a direct decision, the same principles would apply. 4.  We have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties. We agree with Shri Khaitan that an identical product was the subject matter of decision of Order No. 44/87. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Aluminium C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s". In that case also an argument was advanced that by virtue of Explanation-III dross and skimmings by virtue of their exclusion would attract duty under Item 68. This argument was not accepted and the decision in the Indian Aluminium, which was the direct decision on the point was followed. The decision of the Supreme Court in Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and Another v. U.O.I, and Othe....