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

2000 (2) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4-1995. 2. Heard Shri S. Kannan, learned DR for the Revenue and Shri AP Datar and Saravanan, learned Counsels for the respondents. 3. Briefly the issue concerns applicability of Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20-5-1988 which provides exemption to steel tubes which are produced out of steel plates/sheets not exceeding thickness of 5 mm. Show cause notice had alleged that the respondents had manufactured tubes and pipes out of HR coils of thickness exceeding 5 mm. This allegation was based on the statement given by the respondents' employees and their quality control department. This showed that the estimated thickness of the end product i.e. tubes was more than 5 mm. 4. As against this, the learned Commissioner had in the impugned or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Notification. 6. The learned DR on the other hand takes us through the grounds of appeal and submits that no doubt the Notification stipulates that the input material should not exceed 5 mm thickness. But since the substantive benefit of the exemption is related to the output i.e. pipes and tubes, therefore, the two are connected and relatively inseparably. Secondly the respondents' own quality control inspection report of their slitting clearly shows that after slitting, the coils were measured at more than 5 mm thickness. Thirdly the quality control reports were authentic because they were also checked by the ISI officials. Fourthly the Revenue contends that the ISI tolerance limits are not to be applied as the Notification 202/88 do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... estion of buying thicker coils. (iii) In fact when they were having the avenues of supplying tubes and pipes of thickness beyond 5 mm, they had therefore to resort to trading activity and proof of such trading activity is on record showing that they purchased ready-made pipes of higher thickness and supplied them where required. (c) The leanred Counsel further submitted that it is on record to the effect that SAIL did not manufacture steel sheets of intermediate thickness i.e. decimal point above 5 mm and that sheets of above 5 mm only in multimple of 1 mm thickness i.e. they do not manufacture sheets of 5.3 mm or 5.4 mm or 5.88 mm thickness at all. (d) The learned Counsel submits that the only logical conclusion which can be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue to prove so and no whisper of evidence has been led to discharge this burden. As against this, they have submitted a certificate from the manufacturer that their plant is not capable of producing steel tubes and pipes beyond 5 mm thickness, as far back as 1984. In 1985 the Chartered Engineer's certificate was also submitted. This evidence should be read in the context of the certificate from SAIL. From 1990 onwards they have not supplied any HR coil or any other steel sheets beyond 5 mm thickness. He submitted that in the face of these evidence, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are mere conjecture. (g) The Learned Counsel further submitted that in their own quality control reports which have been relied upon by the Revenue as e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e legally correct to link that thickness with the thickness of the output at all. Since the evidence relied upon by the Revenue pertains to the thickness of the output as contained in the quality control reports of the respondents as well as their invoice, therefore, on this evidence alone, the appeal does not seem to carry much strength. The learned Commissioner has, in great details, evaluated the evidence on record. We have no hesitation in agreeing with him that on the one side this evidence shows that the respondents had placed orders for purchase from SAIL only for HR coils thickness of 5 mm; that as per the test certificate etc. of the SAIL, only HR coils of 5 mm were delivered since 1990 as was required; and as per both manufacturer .....

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