1983 (6) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Levy of duty on scrap production, classification under Central Excise Tariff, retrospective effect of notifications, application of Section 2(f) for duty levy, declaration of scrap in classification list, suppression of facts, maintenance of statutory records, justification of penalty under Rule 173Q.

Analysis:
The appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was filed against the Collector of Central Excise's order levying duty on scrap production and imposing a penalty. The appellant argued that since the scrap is produced from scrap and falls under the same classification in the Central Excise Tariff, there is no manufacture as per Section 2(f) and thus no duty should be levied. The consultant referred to judicial pronouncements and departmental decisions to support this argument. Additionally, it was contended that the steel scrap is an intermediate product in steel ingots' production and hence not chargeable to duty. The appellant also claimed that the scrap was declared in the classification list, challenging the department's invocation of Section 11A proviso for demanding duty for the past five years. The appellant emphasized the non-suppression of facts and the maintenance of statutory records to limit duty demand to a shorter period.

The Departmental Representative argued that the scrap fell under a specific item in the Central Excise Tariff and exemptions granted through notifications had no retrospective effect. Therefore, the Collector's duty levy order was justified. The Departmental Representative requested the dismissal of the appeal based on these arguments.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the issue revolved around the duty levy on scrap arising from steel ingots and castings production. It was acknowledged that the appellant used steel scrap in ingots' production, and the duty charge was based on the quantity of scrap generated in this process. However, since the fresh melting scrap was classified under the same category as the old scrap from which it was manufactured, there was no production of a new article meeting the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f). Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that no duty could be levied on this scrap. As duty was not chargeable, the Collector's order for duty and penalty imposition was deemed incorrect, leading to the appeal's allowance and the setting aside of the Collector's order.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the ultimate decision reached based on the facts and legal principles involved in the case.