2000 (11) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for exemption under Notification 208/83 between 3-1-1984 and 27-3-1987.

Analysis:
The dispute in the appeal concerns the appellant's eligibility for an exemption under Notification 208/83 during a specific period. The notification exempts certain final products from duty payment if manufactured from specified inputs on which excise duty or additional customs duty has been paid, provided proforma credit or Modvat credit is not taken. The Explanation to the notification deems all stocks of inputs, except those clearly identifiable as non-duty paid, as inputs on which duty has been paid.

The Collector, in the impugned order, denied the exemption stating that the appellant received scrap from ship breakers, considered non-duty paid as per a Tribunal decision. The Collector also questioned the duty payment status of ingots and billets used by the appellant. The appellant argued that the ship breaking scrap was purchased from dealers, not ship breakers directly, and provided evidence of duty payment on ingots and billets, which were seized by the department.

The Tribunal found that the Collector misinterpreted the previous Tribunal decision regarding ship breaking scrap. It noted that the appellant purchased scrap from dealers, not ship breakers, and submitted evidence of duty payment on ingots and billets. The Tribunal emphasized that if the inputs specified in the notification were used for manufacturing, the appellant should be entitled to the exemption. It criticized the lack of clear reasoning in the Collector's order and the failure to address other arguments raised by the appellant.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a re-examination in line with the law. The Tribunal urged prompt resolution due to the elapsed time. The appellant's advocate assured cooperation and readiness for a hearing before the Commissioner without adjournment, emphasizing the importance of the seized records in the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough re-examination by the Commissioner, considering all aspects of the case, and directed a timely resolution of the matter.