9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs against the appellants and confiscating 717.500 MTs of twisted bars seized on 20-6-1989 when the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 12 lakhs. 2. Prior to the period of demand, bars and rods of iron and non-alloy steel, stainless steel and other alloy steel not further worked than hot rolled, hot drawn or hot extruded but including those twisted after rolling, falling under sub-heading 7214.90 were exempt from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 90/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. Further by Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988, the expression but not including those twisted after rolling in Notification No. 90/88 was deleted and re-introduced only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etals . In the light of the department s admission that these goods are hot drawn and thereafter it is cold formed and cold finished and referred to the CTD bars, they satisfied the terms of the wordings, which grants the exemption. The conclusion to be drawn that CTD bars are not further worked is on the basis of the legislative intent, which has been shown to us, and also because the items having been exempted earlier and subsequent to this Notification. It is also because of the understanding held by the Department and the trade notice and circular issued in this regard. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, on the basis of the admitted position and as from the inception of the Tariff heading, till date, it is obvious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that it is not flowing from the facts of this particular case. We have noted that the Notification No. 202/88, on its plain reading applies to the goods and the subsequent notification had amplified and clarified the ambiguity which was in existence. Therefore, the question of giving strict interpretation to exclude twisted bars does not arise especially in the light of the department s clarifying by circulars about bars and twisted bars being classifiable under Heading 7214.90 and being exempted from duty. 4. The case law cited by the learned DR namely the Apex Court decision in the case of Bombay Oil Industries reported in [1995 (77) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)] is distinguishable from the facts of this case - in that case condition No. 2 in ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
