2018 (11) TMI 215

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 aluminium products, aluminium dross is generated. The appellants cleared the goods manufactured by them including aluminium dross on payment of Central Excise duty. The dispute covers the period February, 2005 to January, 2006. During the said period, the appellant was availing the benefit of area based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, inasmuch as the appellant's factory was situated in an area covered by the said Notification. As per the Scheme of the said Notification, the appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty and subsequently, the duty paid was paid back to them subject to the conditions in the area based exemption notification. During the period under dispute as above, the appellant claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recover such refund through a notice under Section 11A ibid ; (ii) The refund has been sanctioned after the appellant fulfilled all conditions laid down in the relevant Notification No.32/99-CE (supra). The Notification has covered Chapter 26, which includes aluminium dross. This was duly considered by the Refunding Authority at the time of passing of the refund claim. Such refund orders have attained finality and there was no scope to re-open the same on the ground of erroneous refund under Section 11A ibid. In this regard, he has relied on the following case laws : (i) Eveready Indus. India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai : 2016 (337) ELT 189 (Mad.) ; (ii) TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & CE : 2016 (339) ELT 129 (Tri.-Hyd.) ; (iii)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dross, subject to the conditions specified in the Notification. Later on, the Revenue realized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indian Aluminium Co.Ltd. reported in 2006 (203) ELT 3 (SC), has held that aluminium dross is not excisable even if there is a tariff entry in the Central Excise Tariff covering it. In view of the above decision, Revenue was of the view that the appellant was not required to pay duty on aluminium dross and if paid, will not be entitled to the refund thereon in terms of Notification No.32/99-CE (Supra). 9. In the present proceedings before the lower authority as well as in the grounds of appeal, it has been agitated that the Revenue was not entitled to recover the r....