9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-CE dated 1-8-1983 certain final products were exempted from the payment of Central Excise duty provided they were produced out of any of the specified inputs (listed in column 2 of the notification) on which duty had already been paid. In terms of the explanation to the notification inputs purchased from the market were to be deemed as duty paid. The appellants were purchasing M.S. trimmings, rings Punched sheets, cuttings, flat end cuttings, end cuttings of rounds, bars, rods, sheet cuttings and other miscellaneous items from scrap dealers in the local market for use as inputs in the manufacture of steel ingots. In the classification lists filed by them from time to time they claimed the steel ingots manufactured in their factory as exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts the learned JDR Shri M.S. Arora stated that there was no infirmity in the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that inputs purchased by the appellants from Scrap dealers for being used for melting for the recovery of metal were Waste and Scrap falling under Tariff Item 25(3). He contended that the appellants claim that the inputs purchased by them from Scrap dealers and utilised for the purpose of melting were roughly shaped pieces classifiable under sub-item (8) of Tariff Item 25 is erroneous and misleading since on a plain reading of the sub-item (8) of T.I. 25 and on reference to the term pieces roughly shaped by forging as defined under Chapter 73.07(6) of the Explanatory notes to the B.T.N. it follows that defective items arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified was not properly understood by the Revenue and even though such inputs by virtue of being covered by Item 25(8) of Tariff were specified in the Notification No. 208/83 duty was sought to be recovered on the final product on the erroneous findings that they had to be equated with waste and scrap. He stated that the Department was wrong in presuming that the inputs in question were waste and scrap since they had been used for the purpose of melting and for the recovery of metal. He contended that even though the material was not Waste and Scrap it was advantageous to use it for melting purposes since it was defective or improperly rolled or forged and was treatable as duty paid on account of its availability in the market. He furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel ingots manufactured by the appellants during the relevant period were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83 since the inputs used by the appellants fell in the category of Waste and Scrap falling under Tariff Item 25(3) which was not specified in column 2 of the notification. On the other hand the appellants have claimed that the Steel Ingots in question were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83 since the inputs used by them were pieces roughly shaped by action of forging or rolling not elsewhere specified, classifiable under sub-item (8) of Tariff Item 25 which was specified under column 2 of the said notification. 5. It is seen that under Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983 Steel Ingots ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notification. The appellants have countered these arguments stating that the definition in the BTN cited by the Department is not relevant, since the relevant Central Excise Tariff was not aligned to BTN. They have also claimed that even though the inputs in question were pieces roughly shaped falling under Tariff Item 25(8) they were used for melting since it was economical for them to do so on account of the provision in the notification that when purchased from the market they were to be deemed as products on which duty liability had been discharged. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions we refer to Tariff Items 25(3) and 25(8) which are reproduced below : Item No. Description of goods (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983. In view of the findings that the various materials purchased by the appellants for being used for melting for the production of Steel Ingots were in the nature of Waste and Scrap and not pieces roughly shaped by process of rolling or forging falling under T.I. 25(8), we find no force in the appellants argument that the Collector (Appeals) finding in regard to the nature and classification of goods was not sustainable since the lower authorities had not carried out any verification of the relevant records maintainable in the appellants factory or of the actual raw material that was utilised. 8. In view of the discussion above the appeal is rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
