1987 (5) TMI 103 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of runners and risers as steel ingots or steel making scrap for duty exemption under Notification 237/75.
2. Justification of the demand for an extended period of limitation.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Product:
The Appellants challenged the deletion of M.S. Bones and Alloy Steel Bones from their Classification List without notice. The Assistant Collector upheld the duty demand for runners and risers, considering them as not exempt under any provision. The Collector (Appeals) affirmed the demand based on a previous Tribunal decision. The Appellants argued that runners and risers should be considered as ingots under Tariff Item 26. However, the Tribunal, citing previous cases, determined that runners and risers are essentially melting scrap due to their nature and lack of specific shape. The Appellants' claim of being fit for re-rolling did not alter this conclusion.

2. Applicability of Notification 237/75:
The Appellants contended that Notification 237/75 should apply to runners and risers as steel making scrap under Tariff Item 26. The Tribunal referenced past judgments to reject this argument, stating that the extended meaning of "steel ingots" in the notification does not cover melting scrap. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from previous decisions despite the Appellants' assertions of different circumstances in their case.

3. Extended Period of Limitation:
Regarding the time bar issue, the Appellants highlighted that no suppression or misstatement was alleged in the show cause notice. They had filed Classification Lists mentioning M.S. Bones and Alloy Steel Bones, which were later struck off by the Department. The Tribunal observed that the Appellants' documentation and records clearly indicated the nature of the products, refuting any clandestine removal claims. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the demand for an extended period of limitation, directing the duty calculation for a specific period before the show cause notice issuance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Appeal by rejecting the extended period demand but upheld other aspects of the Collector's decision. The duty calculation was ordered for a limited period, emphasizing the lack of justification for an extended period based on the evidence presented by the Appellants.