1999 (8) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 is available to the respondents, M/s. Shreeram Steel Industries & Engineering Works.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the question of whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988. The issue arose from the purchase of rollable/re-rollable scraps by the respondents and the subsequent utilization of these materials in the manufacturing process. The Assistant Collector, in an adjudication order, had denied the benefit of the notification, stating that rollable/re-rollable material did not fall under the specified inputs listed in the notification. The Collector (Appeals) had overturned this decision, but the Revenue challenged this ruling.

The ld. D.R. argued that the inputs purchased by the respondents were not covered under the notification as they were not explicitly mentioned in the description provided. The burden of proof, according to the ld. D.R., lay with the assessee to demonstrate that their case fell within the parameters of the notification. The Tribunal agreed with the ld. D.R.'s submissions, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector had not based the demand on mere assumptions or presumptions. The Tribunal examined the Table annexed to Notification 202/88, which outlined the specified inputs and final products eligible for the notification's benefits.

Upon reviewing the Table, the Tribunal noted that the inputs were not described as rollable or re-rollable material, and the respondents had failed to establish that the materials they used aligned with the specified inputs listed in the notification. As the burden of proof had not been met by the respondents and there was no indication in the relevant invoice that the materials were rollable or re-rollable, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, denying the respondents the benefit of Notification No. 202/88.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, the Tribunal's interpretation of the notification's provisions, and the ultimate decision reached based on the evidence presented and legal principles applied.