1985 (8) TMI 368 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 43/75-C.E. dated 1-3-1975 regarding exemption for aluminium bars manufactured through continuous casting and rolling process.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of Aluminium bars for exemption under Notification No. 43/75-C.E. The appellants were accused of manufacturing wire rods/bar as crude aluminium bars without paying duty. The Collector of Central Excise found against the appellants, stating that the goods did not qualify as exempted bars under the notification. The Board upheld this decision, emphasizing that the continuous casting and rolling process took the goods out of the crude category. The appellants argued that their product should qualify for exemption as aluminium in crude form, as per the notification's inclusive definition.

The notification granted exemption to aluminium in any crude form, including ingots, bars, blocks, etc. The appellants' product fulfilled the conditions set out in the notification. The word "including" in the notification indicated an inclusive definition, as per legal interpretations. The product, although obtained through continuous casting and rolling, could still be considered aluminium in crude form if mentioned in the notification after the term "including." Therefore, the appellants' product, identified as aluminium bars by the Board, qualified for exemption under the notification.

The Revenue's inconsistent arguments throughout the case were noted. Initially, the show cause notice alleged misdeclaration of wire rods as aluminium bars, but the Collector's reasoning focused on whether the goods were castings or aluminium in crude form. The Board found the products to be bars but ineligible for exemption due to the manufacturing process. However, based on the legal interpretation of inclusive definitions, the appellants' product should be considered aluminium in crude form and entitled to exemption. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalties were set aside, and the matter remanded for further consideration by the Collector of Central Excise in line with the appellate decision.