1 cexa-111.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2010 Slugs India Limited. ... Appellant. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. ... Respondent. V.Sridharan with Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for the appellant. A.S.Rao with S.D.Bhosale for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 12th October 2010. P.C. : Perused appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.2 lakh by way of pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“Act” for short). The legal issue involved in the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the Zink Dross is an excisable 2 cexa-111.10 commodity merely because the said product can be sold in the market as such can it be equated as marketable commodity within the meaning of the Central Excise legislation. 3. All these questions need serious consideration at the hands of Tribunal in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co.Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 268 (SC) and Collector of Central Excise v. Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd., 2004 (165) ELT 386 (SC) governing the issue. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for grant of total exemption from payment of duty at this stage. 4. Having said so and having tested the impugned order on the above canvas, the impugned order can hardly be said to be a sustainable order. 5. In the result, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on its own merits without insisting for pre-deposit. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)