9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e involved in the appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 as well as 90/88 or not. The appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Rods, out of re-rollable material and scrap purchased from the open market. The appellants have manufactured M.S. Rods (919.166 MT) and cleared the same without payment of excise duty by claiming the exemption under Notification Nos. 90/88 and 202/88. This is the contention of the appellants that the inputs/raw materials utilized by them for the manufacture of M.S. Rods answers to the description of inputs/raw materials given in column 2 of these two notifications. They also contended that the said raw material/scrap has been purchased from the open market (under the cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority has not taken into consideration, the plea of limitation raised by the appellants, which has a vital bearing on the whole issue. Hence, the order is bad under the law and is not tenable. I also find that the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned de novo order without giving a chance of personal hearing to the parry. The adjudicating authority fixed the personal hearing on 27-9-2004, but due to absence/non-availability of the adjudicating officer, no personal hearing took place on the said date. Not giving a chance of personal hearing, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the proceedings are not sustainable under the law. It is also not explained how the matter was taken up for de novo adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Ministry (CBEC, New Delhi). The contents of Ministry's circular are reproduced for the sake of easy reference. I am directed to say that a doubt has arisen on the classification of Iron and Steel waste and scrap in the CET, 1985. The matter has been examined by the Board and it is felt that heading 7204 would not cover an article which could be converted into another article by hot rolling without it being necessary to remit the metal first. The Board, therefore concluded that heading No. 7204 read with Note 8a to Section XV and HSN Explanatory Notes at pages 987-988 would cover only such waste and scrap as would generally be used for re-melting and consequently would not cover re-rollable scrap. Such waste and scrap which is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification have to be strictly construed and the Scrap purchased was not re-rollable one and hence the findings are not correct.
5. On our careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order on the grounds already noted supra. The appellant's contention is that they have purchased re-rollable scrap from the market for the purpose of manufacture of M.S. rods. The department has not challenged the manufacture of M.S. rods. There is also no plea that the assessee has purchased some other scrap and not the one which is required for re-rollable scrap. Therefore, the findings recorded is correct. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
