CCE Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO (ECC) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether Zinc Ash and Zinc dross are classifiable under Heading 79.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or under Heading 26.20 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.

(2.) We heard Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R., and MRs. Reena Kher, learned Advocate for the Respondents M/s . Larsen Toubro (ECC) Ltd. The learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents manufacture towers and structures; that during the process of galvanization of pieces cut from M.S. angles and plates, etc. they obtain Zinc Ash/Zinc dross which is classifiable under Heading 79.20; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna 2001 (135) ELT 1142 against which the Revenue's appeal has been admitted by the Supreme Court.

(3.) The Commissioner (appeals) has mentioned in the impugned Order that when steel articles are dipped into molted zinc bath, a metallurgical reaction take place between steel and molten zinc; that during this process a small portion of steel dust from the surface of steel articles gets separated which reacts with zinc and form an alloy and then settle at the bottom of zinc bath. This alloy is termed as zinc dross. top surface of the molten zinc bath is always in contact with atmosphere and reacts with oxygen and turn into zinc oxide known as zinc ash. The Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Zinc -O -India v. CCE, Jaipur, 2000 (125) ELT 1274 and the decision in the case of TISCO (supra) classified both zinc dross and zinc ash under heading 26.20. The Revenue has not brought on record and material to show that the decision in both these cases, relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), have been stayed by the Supreme Court. In view of this we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned Order. Accordingly we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.