2017 (5) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nainawati, Advocate For Revenue: Shri S.N. Gohil, A.R. ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Out of the two appeals, one by the Appellant-assessee and another by the Revenue against respective OIAs; since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts in Appeal No.E/1269/2008 filed by M/s Nav Bharat Metallic Oxide Industries Pvt. Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of manufacture of said goods Alluminum Dross is generated. Alleging that the said Aluminum Dross is an excisable product, demand of Rs. 15,41,686/- for the period August 2001 to 12.03.2006 was demanded from the Respondent M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondents filed appeal before the learned Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "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'b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rly the above reproduced paragraphs could have been brushed aside by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court listed the twin tests and which have to be satisfied before the goods can be said to be excisable to tax or Central Excise duty. It is in these circumstances that the attempt of the Tribunal and which is supported before us by Mr. Sethna cannot be upheld. Each of these observations and from....