9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid Ingots/Billets and availed proforma credit. During the period 1-4-1983 to 31-7-1983, they cleared end cuttings of various products. 3. The issue involved is as to whether these end cuttings of bars and rods are to be treated as steel melting scrap covered by Item 26 C.E.T. or as a product of which they are the end cuttings. 4. The Board under its Tariff Advice No. 16/81, dated 6-2-1981 (1981 E.C.R. 105B) had clarified as follows :- "It is considered that cut-ends of M.S. Round Bars, which can be re-rolled as such, would be treated as Bars and assessed to duty under Item No. 26AA-CET, and where the cut-ends of the M.S. Round Bars, cannot be re-rolled as such, these would be regarded as melting scrap for assessment under Item No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of metal can be taken as scrap. The appellants had paid more duty classifying the material as product and in case it is to be taken as scrap, they were entitled to payment of refund of excess amount paid. 8. Learned DR drew attention to the impugned order and stated that this case pertains prior to 1-8-1983 when Item 26 read as "steel ingots including steel melting scrap." 9. The appellants have themselves admitted before Collector (Appeals) that end cuttings were sold by them to the units having electric furnaces which melt the scrap. On the face of these facts, it is not possible to agree that they were not steel melting scrap. 10. The RG-23 account could be used only for payment of duty on finished product and not on scra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve clarification by the Board, it is evident that it is for the appellants to show whether the end cuttings in question were of the re-rollable type or melting scrap type. 16. In the present case, since they were admittedly sold for melting to electric furnacewalas, therefore, the quantity in question can only be treated as melting scrap, as rightly held by the learned Collector. 17. At the same time, since under Rule 56A, they had made relevant entries in their records and paid duty through this account, albeit mistakenly the extended period of time was not available to the Department and mistaken payment through RG-23 instead of PLA cannot be considered as an act of deliberate evasion of duty. In fact, being in the nature of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
