M/S Broadway Overseas Limited vs Cce & St, Ludhiana

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 30/Appeal/Cus (D) Camp. Chd/13 dated 28/03/2013 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :

the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :

the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for

publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :

copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :

Department Authorities?

M/s Broadway Overseas Limited Appellant

Versus

CCE & ST, Ludhiana Respondent

Appearance

Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate  for the appellant.

Shri S. Nanthick, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR)  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52831/2015 Dated : 08/09/2015

Per. Ashok Jindal :-

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty on zinc dross emerges during the manufacturing of fence fittings.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant is engaged in manufacturing of fence fittings during the course of manufacturing activity galvanizing took place and zinc dross has been obtained. The appellant cleared the zinc dross without payment of duty. Revenue is of the view that w.e.f. 10/05/2008 by inserting Explanation to Clause (d) under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, zinc dross become excisable, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty on clearance of zinc dross. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant which resulted in demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.

3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issue before us is that whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on zinc dross which emerges during the manufacturing of their final product as per explanation to the Section 2 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 10/05/2008 or not?

4. As the issue has been settled by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2014  TIOL  2266  HC  MUM  CX, wherein the Honble High Court has come to the conclusion that aluminium dross and skimmings are not excisable even post 10/05/2008 as per explanation to Section 2 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, relying on the decision of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) of the Honble High Court of Bombay, we hold that appellant is not liable to pay duty on zinc dross emerges during the manufacturing of their final product.

5. In these terms, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

3