1998 (5) TMI 62 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Error in not recording a finding on the consistent claim for exemption to unmachined casting under Notification No. 275/88.
2. Eligibility of the applicants to the benefit of Notification No. 275/88.
3. Error apparent in the Tribunal's order regarding the benefit of Notification No. 275/88.
4. Correction of the Tribunal's Final Order to include the benefit of Notification No. 275/88.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The applicants/appellants claimed an error in not recording any finding on their consistent claim for exemption to unmachined casting under Notification No. 275/88. They argued that the Bench should have determined eligibility for this Notification before considering an alternative benefit under Notification No. 223/88.

Issue 2: The applicants contended that the product in dispute, being unmachined iron castings, satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 275/88. They argued that as the castings were made from specified duty-paid inputs without claiming credit of the duty paid on the inputs, they were entitled to the benefit of this Notification.

Issue 3: The Tribunal acknowledged the error in failing to record a finding on the claim to the benefit of Notification No. 275/88. Upon review, it was determined that since the products in question did not undergo machining operations, they fell within the scope of Notification No. 275/88, covering "unmachined iron castings and unmachined cast articles of iron."

Issue 4: The Tribunal corrected its Final Order to include the benefit of Notification No. 275/88 for the appellants. The order was modified to reflect the appellants' eligibility for the said Notification, thereby negating the need to consider an alternative benefit under Notification No. 223/88. The matter was remanded for further consideration of the plea for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the oversight in not addressing the claim for exemption under Notification No. 275/88 and affirmed the appellants' entitlement to the said benefit. The correction in the Final Order ensured clarity on the appellants' eligibility and set aside the previous decision, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.