9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant manufactured non-alloy steel ingots and billets. From 1-6-1999, they were also manufacturing alloy steel castings and they were availing the SSI benefit for the alloy steel castings prior to 1-6-1999. They opted for Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Department initiated proceedings against them for the alloy steel ingots and billets on the ground that Explanation to Rule 2 of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 covers only goods ordinarily manufactured and goods manufactured incidentally and the alloy steel goods are not produced incidentally. Accordingly, show cause-cum-demand notice was issued for the differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for alloy steel castings was 168.53 MT, which works out to around 5% of the total manufactured quantity of the non-alloy steel of the notified goods. The contention is that non-alloy steel casting is ordinarily produced, whereas alloy steel is incidentally produced. Therefore, the word, 'incidentally' in the explanation has to be interpreted in the context it is used. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) 2001 (129) E.L.T. 88 (Tri.-Del) - Asian Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh; (ii) 2004 (169) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Del.) - Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh; (iii) 2006 (199) E.L.T. 721 (Tri.-Mum.) - Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Raiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expression, 'incidentally produces' has to be interpreted in context with 'ordinarily produces'. In the relevant context, 'incidentally' means 'occasional' as opposed to 'normally' or 'ordinarily'. Undisputedly, during the period in question, the Appellant manufactured non-alloy steel ingots to the extent of 2503.252 MT and produced alloy steel castings only to the extent of 168.5 MT, which works out to around 5% of the totally manufactured quantity of the non-alloy steel castings as 'notified goods'. Thus, the Appellant predominantly manufactured the 'notified goods', i.e. non-alloy steel castings. This Tribunal in the case of Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. (supra) held as follows : "2. Shri T. Gunasekaran, learned Advocate for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing predominantly non-notified goods, they are entitled to discharge duty liability for the entire quantity of goods under the normal procedure under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and they are also eligible to take Modvat credit on the inputs used."
7.1 As already discussed, the Appellant were manufacturing predominantly 'notified goods' (non-alloy steel castings) under the Compounded Levy Scheme. As such, the duty paid in respect of alloy steel castings under the Compounded Levy Scheme was in accordance with law and thus, we find that the learned Commissioner's Order is not sustainable. As such, the Impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
