9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Iron and Steel scrap falling under the then Tariff Item 72.03 during the period May" 1986 to August, 1986. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots, billets. The appellants have stated that the inputs primarily are waste and scrap of iron and steel which they purchased from the open market. 3. Arguing for the appellants Ld. Advocate submitted under Rule 57(A), the inputs they purchased and final products are notified items and therefore they were eligible to take credit of duty. They had been permitted to avail deemed credit on iron and steel scrap purchased from the open market without production of duty paying documents. This was permitted to them under direction issued by Central Govt. under proviso to Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inability to produce evidence with regard to the payment of duty. In this background, the Central Government had authorised the manufacturers to claim credit, at the specified rates for different kinds of inputs. This benefit was however available only in respect of the goods purchased from outside and lying in stock on/or after 1-3-1986 with the manufacturer for the manufacture of final products..... Different rates at which the duty was to be deemed to have been paid were speci- fied. If the input was Iron, duty could be deemed to have been paid @ Rs. 80/- per tonne. If the input was steel and articles thereof, the specified rate was Rs. 365/- per tonne. It is for the manufacturer, who claims credit @ Rs. 365/- per tonne, to show that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods and merely because some goods could have been cleared under exemption could not raise a presumption that goods are non-duty paid. In this connection he cited the cases of CCE v. Balaji Alloys and Castings Pvt. Ltd. - reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 783 (Tribunal), CCE v. Mittal Metal Industries - reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal), CCE v. Mala Metals - reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 476 (Tribunal); CCE v. Kapsons Electro Stampings reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 323 (Tribunal). 4. Ld. DR while admitting that there was no evidence that goods came from factories after availing of exemption referred to observation of Collector in para-14 of Collector s Orders in which reference has been made to the observation of Hon ble High Court reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim credit @ Rs. 365/- per tonne. Which scrap was used by a particular manufacturer? This can be ascertained only when the manufacturer files a definite return or reply to the show cause notice and produces the evidence in support of its claim. It is then that the competent authority shall determine as to whether or not the evidence produced by the manufacturer is sufficient to prove that the input claimed by the manufacturer was actually used or that the case falls within one of the three exceptions specified in the Order..... According to the Hon ble Single Judge, the manufacturer has to take a definite stand. We find, the Hon. Division Bench observed, the view taken by the Learned Single Judge is wholly unexceptionable . 6. Ld. Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
