1996 (1) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 53/80 regarding exemption for steel ingots, classification of runners and risers, applicability of tariff entry for steel ingots including steel melting scrap, consideration of runners and risers as excisable goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the classification of runners and risers under Tariff Item 26 for excise duty. The appellant argued that runners and risers were excisable under Tariff Item 26 as steel ingots, while the Department contested this classification, stating that runners and risers did not fall under the exemption of Notification No. 53/80.

The appellant contended that runners and risers should be considered as steel ingots or steel melting scrap, citing historical interpretations by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). They emphasized that the exemption notification was applicable to steel melting scrap arising in electric furnace units, as acknowledged by the CBEC in a letter dated 23-8-1973.

The appellant further argued that the definition of "Scrap" as waste fit for metal recovery did not apply to runners and risers, as they were not fit for metal recovery but for further hot treatment. They also highlighted a subsequent notification recognizing runners and risers as exempt.

The Department, however, maintained that runners and risers were not ingots or scrap but distinct products, not covered by the relevant tariff entry. They referenced a previous Tribunal order that specified steel ingots without mentioning steel melting scrap, indicating that the extended meaning of steel ingots did not include scrap.

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and the relevant Notification No. 53/80, which exempted steel ingots manufactured from specific materials, including skull scrap and runners and risers. The Tribunal noted that runners and risers were considered raw materials for ingots, distinct from ingots themselves. It was observed that there was no evidence to classify runners and risers as excisable goods or as covered by the tariff heading.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, accepting the appeal and disposing of the cross objection. The decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the classification of runners and risers as excisable goods under the relevant tariff entry during the period in question.