payment of duty being waste products. Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2009 for the period May 2008 to December 2008 were issued to the Appellant seeking recovery of the duty on clearance of Aluminium Dross on the ground that the same was excisable as Aluminium Dross was ‘marketable’ in terms of the explanation added to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (w.e.f. 10.05.2008). The demand in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 10.11.2009 which confirmed the demand of Rs.5,09,838/- as against excise duty of Rs.5,83,357/- proposed in the Show Cause Notice. The Order-in-Original also imposed penalty of Rs.1,25,000/- Appeal against the Order-in-Original was dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 28.01.2010. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled in favour of the Appellant by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the Appellant’s own case-Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs. UOI reported as 2015 (315) ELT 10 (Bom.), wherein, it has been held that aluminium dross, not being a result of any process, is not covered within the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
