TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows:- That the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. "Aluminium and Articles thereof and Power". During the course of Audit of its record for the period from April 2015 to June 2017, the Department observed that the appellant has cleared "Aluminium dross" valued at Rs. 1111.60 lakh, however, without payment of central excise duty to various buyers on commercial invoices. The department formed an opinion that Aluminium dross since is exempted goods, hence, the appellant is under obligation to pay an amount of duty equal to 6% of the value of exempted goods as stipulated under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (hereinafter referred as CCR, 2004). With these observations, a show cause notice No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arat Aluminium Company Ltd [2015 (329) E.L.T 580 (Tri- Del)] • Hindalco Indusrties Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad [2017 SCC Online CESTAT 9283] Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors [2014-TIOL-2266-HC-MUM-CX] • Union of India Vs Hindalco Industries Ltd [2019 (367) E.L.T A246 (SC)] • Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2022-VIL-979- CESTAT-MUM-CE • Bajaj Auto Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.Ex & Cus Aurangabad [2015 (322) E.L.T 419 (SC)] 3.2 Learned Counsel has also brought to the notice the Board Circular No. 1084/05/2022-CX dated 07.07.2022 as was issued by the Department accepting the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Sucros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufactured product. 6. Subsequent to said decision, the Board vide the aforesaid Circular dated 25.04.2016 had acknowledged that the said judgement applies to both the periods i.e the period pre as well as post insertion of explanation in Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA, 1944) on 10.5.2008. The explanation to Section 2(d) reads as follows:- d) "excisable goods" means goods specified in (the First Schedule and the Second Schedule] to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (5 of (1986)] as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt, [Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, "goods" includes any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration from the factory need to be treated like exempted goods for the purpose of reversal of credit of input and input services, in terms of rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 This circular was issued in the background of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs M/s DSCL Sugar Ltd (2015 (322) ELT 769 (S.C.)) holding that Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue and it is not a result of any process which can be termed as 'manufacture' Similar conclusion was also drawn by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2015 (315) ELT 10 (Bom) in relation to dross and skimming of aluminium, zinc or other non-ferrous metals" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appellant's own case has also dealt with the issue with following observations, while deciding the issue in favour of the appellant:- "It has held that the dross and skimming of Aluminium neither goods nor marketable commodities and, hence, are not liable to Excise duty. Though Apex Court's judgment pertains to the period prior to 1986 when there was no specific entry in the Central Excise Tariff for dross and skimming of non-ferrous metal in the Central Excise Tariff and the such dross and skimming was sought to be taxed under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and during the period of dispute there was a specific Heading 2620 covering the dross and skimming of aluminium, just because a particular product is covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Appeals) that the goods, in question, are not excisable cannot be assailed. 6. There is one more reason why the impugned order is correct. In terms of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 of the Tariff, Heading 26.20 applies only to that ash and residue which are used in the industry for extraction of metal or as starting material for manufacture of metal compounds. Such ash and residues would, obviously, be marketable as there would be demand for the same from metal extraction and chemical industry. But in this regard, no evidence in form of evidence of end use of the dross for extraction of aluminium or for manufacture of aluminium compound has been produced. Therefore, the dross and residues, in question, is not covered by 2620. ....