HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reference made to the Larger Bench reads as follows:

(2.) THE appellant is a manufacturer of aluminium sheets and coils falling under CETH 7607 11 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The major raw material required for manufacture of aluminium sheets/coils is aluminium ingots. In the course of manufacture of aluminium sheets/coils, aluminium dross/skimmings emerge as by -products. The appellant sell these by -products on a regular basis. This matter had come up for consideration earlier before a Division Bench of this Tribunal. The Division Bench noted that there are two contrary views taken by this Tribunal on this issue. In the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [ : 2012 (284) E.L.T. 713] the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal, in respect of zinc dross which arose as a by -product during galvanization of cold rolled coils held that zinc dross is not a manufactured product and therefore, not liable to excise duty even after the amendment made to Section 2(d) w.e.f. 10 -5 -2008. However, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of KEC International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -I [ : 2012 (283) E.L.T. 428] considered the very same issue and held that as per Explanation to Section 2(d) zinc dross and ash are deemed to be marketable and even in the HSN Explanatory Notes, zinc dross is specifically mentioned as a tradable item and consequently it was held that zinc dross is an excisable product liable to excise duty. In view of these conflicting views expressed by two Benches of the Tribunal, the reference mentioned above has been placed before the Larger Bench.

(3.) THE learned Special Consultant for the Revenue made the following submissions: