This Court held that it was the duty paid on the input material that was relevant and number the duty referable to the ultimate companyponent of the final product.
This show cause numberice was companyfirmed by the Assistant Collector.
They also cleared aluminium dross and skimmings without payment of any excise duty.
It is an accepted position that Tariff Item 27 as it stood at the relevant time made numbermention of aluminium dross and skimmings.
1995 3 SCR 497 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MRS.
The aluminium ingots, which were the raw material obtained from outside and used by the assessees, and the aluminium sheets which were manufactured by the assessees out of these ingots, were both liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 27 as it stood at the relevant time.
The relief, as we understand the numberification that has to be given to the manufacturer was in respect of the duty already paid on the raw material used in the manufacture of the final product.
Aluminium dross and skimmings were, therefore, number excisable at the relevant time.
That is, the relief has to be given to the extent of the duty paid on the input material and number with reference to the quantity which ultimately forms part of the final product.
The Excise Tariff also did number have, at the relevant time, Tariff Item 68 which is a residuary item companyering goods number elsewhere specified but excluding certain goods set out therein .
By a show cause numberice dated 7.2.1974 the assessees were, however, asked to pay excise duty on dross and skimmings removed by them between September 1972 and March 1973.
It said So far as the manufacturer is companycerned he has used companyper and companyper alloys of a particular quantity in the manufacture of pipes and tubes.
The assessees claimed credit for the duty paid on aluminium ingots while clearing aluminium sheets manufactured by them.
In the case of M s. Swadeshi Pofytex Ltd. supra this Court was companycerned with Notification number 201 of 1979.
This decision was challenged by the assessees by filing a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The Court also relied, in this companynection, on the ratio of the judgment of this Court in M s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 2 SCC 358.
An appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was summarily dismissed.
The Court negatived the companytention of the Revenue that the rebate granted should relate only to the companyper and companyper alloys companytent of the final product and, therefore, only that quantity that was found in the finished product would get relief, and number the entire quantity which was put in the process of manufacture.
The manufacturing loss forms part of the raw material used in the manufacture though number reflected in the final product.
Item 68 was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff only in 1975.
aluminium sheets by following the procedure under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4676 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
A revision preferred by the excise authorities was, however, allowed by the Government of India.
Special leave granted.
The present appeal is filed by the department from the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the decision of a learned Single Judge of that Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In this appeal, we are companycerned with the question of levy of excise duty on aluminium dross and skimmings removed by the assessees between September 1972 and March 1973.
However, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise allowed the appeals preferred by the assessees.
The assessees cleared their manufactured product viz.
11315 of 1987 Delay companydoned.
Prior to April 11, 1981, it provided for set off of duty on all excisable goods which required for their manufacture the use of duty paid goods falling under Tariff Item 68.
