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

1997 (11) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Serial No. 2 of the said Classification List declared the description of the goods as Runners and Risers. The said Classification List was made under Tariff Item 25 (6)(ii). Serial No. 3 of the said Classification List described the goods as Waste and Scrap of Steel viz. Skull Runners and Risers, End Cutting, classifying them as under Tariff Item 25 (3)(ii). This Classification List was approved by the Assistant Commissioner on 24-5-1985. A specific endorsement had been made that Runners and Risers at Serial No. 2 of Item 6 of the Form: I (as described above) were of such shape and size that these can be rolled. There was another Classification List No. 3/1986 effective from 1-3-1986 which described the goods as aforesaid again in the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orities have confirmed the demand of differential duty holding in general that Runners and Risers are falling under Tariff Heading: 7203.20 of the erstwhile Tariff or 25 (3)(ii). Hence these appeals by the appellants. 3. Learned Advocate, Shri P.K. Das has submitted that Runners and Risers are of two types. Some Runners and Risers may be fit for rolling and therefore, they are liable to be classified under Tariff Heading 25 (6)(ii) or Tariff Heading 7206.20. There may be, however, some Runners and Risers which are not fit for rolling or not treated as fit for melting and therefore, they are akin to waste and scrap of metal and hence these are classifiable under Tariff Item 25 (3)(ii) or 7203.20 depending upon whether it is under old Tarif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on behalf of the appellants that the runners and risers which are not fit for rolling were used for melting and that the Ministry of Finance has clarified in January, 1979 that the notification issued granting exemption to ingots applied by steel melting scrap also. We find that similar matter has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur in Appeal No. E/1052/88-B1 hereunder Final Order No. F/212/97-B, dated 4-2-1997, the Tribunal with regard to the old Central Excise Tariff had held that the runners and risers which are fit for rolling could not be classified under sub-item No. (3) of Item No. 25 relating to waste and scrap. Para 10 and Para 11 from that decision are reproduced below : 10. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de iron or steel in form similar to puddled bars, pilings, ingots, blocks and lumps. He had referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Ravindra Steel Ltd., Nagpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 413 (Tribunal) = 1983 ECR 294 (Tribunal), where the Tribunal had observed that the two products, steel ingot and the steel melting scrap were not the same and were known to the trade and commerce by distinct names and nomenclatures and that the steel ingots would not include the steel melting scrap. As we have discussed above, the tariff entry under sub-item (6) of Item No. 25 not only covers ingots, but also blocks and lumps and other similar forms of iron and steel. We have also discussed above that all types .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gment relied upon by the learned JDR. We observe that in the said two Judgments relied upon by the learned JDR, no fact was available that Runners and Risers are of two types i.e. one fit for rolling and another fit for melting. Such a controversy came to the notice of the Tribunal as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellants in the case of Hariganga Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur (supra) which is directly on the point of controversy available in this case and is in favour of the appellants herein. This fact has also been recognised, in our view, by the approval of the Classification Lists by the Assistant Commissioner as well, when he had admitted while approving the first Classification List that .....

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