Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (5) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Alloy Steel Bones. These products are known as runners and risers in the market. The said classification list was suo motu modified by the Department deleting the Items without giving any opportunity to the Appellants. The Assistant Collector approved the Classification List on 11-6-1979, though the classification list was filed on 23-8-1978. In the meantime the Appellants had cleared M.S. Bones and Alloy Steel Bones without payment of duty and filed necessary R.T. 12 Returns from time to time indicating the clearances of these products. On 3-9-1979 a show cause notice was issued asking the appellants to show cause why duty of Rs. 2,67,821.97 should not be recovered on the runners and risers cleared by them and falling under Tariff Ite .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notice issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate specified that steel melting scrap which was not intended to be sold as ingots and including those obtained after removal of slag and refractory should be accounted for in their raw material account. He, therefore, urged that runners and risers, which were fit for hot treatment and cleared from the factory for further rolling were nothing but ingots. The Hon ble Finance Minister at the time of passing the Budget for the year 1983-84 has stated : The principles of classification hitherto adopted through executive instructions are being incorporated in the Tariff Entry itself . The learned Counsel urged that if runners and risers fit for further rolling are classifiable under Tariff Item 26(6) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... did not relate to the product concerned in the Appeal. 8. Shri P.S. Bedi, in his reply stated that the product concerned in this case was different from the one decided in the Ravindra Steel Ltd. Further, the Appellants said that the ingots were actually used in re-rolling mills which would imply that they were fit for re-rolling. 9. The points for consideration in this Appeal are : (1) whether the runners and risers arising in the manufacture of steel ingots, would be steel ingots or steel making scrap and would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 237/75; (2) whether the demand for the extended period of limitation could be justified. 10. On the question of classification of the product, the Department rightly drew our att .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rits of this contention. In Paragraph 8 the Tribunal had observed as follows :- Though the tariff Entry relating to Item No. 26 of Central Excise Tariff includes steel melting scrap along with steel ingots, there appears to be no warrant to read such an extended meaning into the expression steel ingots employed in the said Notification". In the case of Modern Steels also, the Tribunal rejected the plea for application of Notification 237/75. 12. We are not impressed with the contention of the Appellants that the facts of the present case are different. The issue has already been considered in the judgments of the Tribunal cited supra and we do not see any reason to justify different conclusion. The reliance on the speech of the H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... make mention of M.S. Bones. In the face of these documents it is futile to contend that the products were removed clandestinely. The RGI account maintained by the Appellants make mention of these removals. In the face of the overwhelming evidence on the said of the Appellants, plea for extended period cannot be approved. 15. The argument that the documents filed by the Appellants do not refer to the products in dispute does not stand scrutiny because even in the show cause notice it is mentioned as M.S. Runners and Risers Bones . Hence we are of the view that demand for the extended period cannot be approved. The demand has to be approved. The demand has to be worked out for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates