9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Whether final products manufactured by M/s. Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd. are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-83. Analysis: The appeal filed by M/s. Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd. raised the issue of whether their final products qualify for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. The Appellants claimed that the inputs used by them, such as off cuts of various steel products, were 'pieces roughly shaped' falling under specific headings of the Tariff Act. They argued that the materials purchased were fit for purposes other than metal recovery, citing legal precedents like L.M.L. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur and Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. CCE, Patna. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the inputs purchased by the Appellants, including trimmings, forgings, dismantled machines, and broken articles, did not qualify as 'pieces roughly shaped' as per the notification. The Adjudicating Authority found that certain terms were added later to the invoices, casting doubt on the classification of the inputs. The Tribunal noted the change in the definition of waste and scrap in the Tariff Act and emphasized that the Appellants failed to demonstrate that the purchased materials could be used for purposes other than metal recovery. The Tribunal considered the definitions of waste and scrap before and after 1988, highlighting the change in wording that influenced the classification of materials. The Revenue's argument that the purchased items did not meet the criteria of 'pieces roughly shaped' was upheld, as the Appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The Tribunal distinguished the case from L.M.L. cases where duty-paid steel sheets were utilized for manufacturing specific parts. In this instance, the Appellants did not establish that the materials purchased were similar small portions used in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellants failed to meet the conditions specified in the notification, leading to the rejection of their appeal for exemption. The judgment reaffirmed that the onus was on the Appellants to demonstrate the use of specified inputs to qualify for the exemption, which they failed to do in this case.
|
