COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that dross and skimming are not excisable goods. Even if they contain a percentage of metal and are marketable, they do not constitute a 'manufactured product' as they do not undergo a transformation to emerge as a new and different article.
What were the facts?
The case concerns whether zinc dross and flux skimming, byproducts of aluminium manufacturing, are excisable goods. The respondent company manufactures aluminium sheets, and dross is a layer removed from molten metal during this process. The Revenue argued that changes in tariff classifications and the marketability of dross make it excisable.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether zinc dross and flux skimming, byproducts of aluminium manufacturing, qualify as 'manufactured goods' for the purpose of excise duty. The court also considered whether changes in tariff classifications and marketability alter the excisable nature of these items.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 533 citing
- 4 citing
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J.
Whether zinc dross and flux skimming are excisable articles is the question involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.06.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, allowing the appeal filed by Respondent herein.
Respondent herein manufactures aluminium sheets, the raw material wherefor is aluminium oxide. In the melting furnance, the top layer of the molten metal is exposed to atmosphere and gets oxidized. As a result of oxidation, a thin layer/ film is formed which is removed by skimming. The second layer so removed is called dross. Indisputably, the percentage of metal in dross will vary and there would be some quantity of aluminium metal therein.
Whether excise duty is payable on ‘dross’ came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Respondent’s own case i.e. in Union of India and Ors. v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Anr., [19
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
