9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of ₹ 100/- basic excise duty plus ₹ 100/- auxiliary excise duty per M.T. (Metric Tonne) instead of at ₹ 25/- basic excise duty plus ₹ 251/- auxiliary excise duty per M.T. The Show Cause Notice went on to state that Central Excise Notification No. 237/75 dated 9th December, 1975 under which the concessional rates of duty referred to earlier were fixed was applicable to steel ingots falling under Item 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and not to steel melting scrap , although these latter goods also fell under the said tariff item. On these grounds, the notice sought to recover an amount of ₹ 16,206.50 as the differential amount of duty involved on the said goods. After considering the appellant s submissions made in writing and orally, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur made an order to the effect that the appellants should pay a sum of ₹ 16,182.90 as the differential duty involved on the steel melting scrap cleared by them on payment of the lower rates of duty held as not applicable to them. Against this order the appellants went in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who held that Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia in the case of Century Iron Steel Limited, wherein Government had held that since Item 26 of the Central Excise Tariff included both steel ingots and steel melting scrap it would not be reasonable to deny the exemption under Notification No. 237/75 to steel melting scrap (including runners and risers) generated along with the ingots in the process of their manufacture. In this context, the Counsel further referred to sub-clause (b) of the proviso to Notification No. 237/75 and urged that where the express intention was to refer to steel melting scrap separately from steel ingots it was explicitly so referred to. Such was not the case with the operative part of the Notification in the operating para exempted steel ingots falling under Item 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (C.E.T.) without any qualifying words. Therefore the exemption conferred on steel ingots would be available to melting scrap also. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants further submitted that if it was held that Notification No. 237/75 did not apply in the instant case, the steel melting scrap in question was entitled to the exemption contained in Central Excise Notification No. 54/64, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25/- per M.T. Though one might argue that it was anomalous to tax the waste product at a higher rate than the primary product, the express words of the notification did not permit the construction sought to be put on it by the appellants. Even if one were to assume that the non-mention of steel melting scrap along with steel ingots in the notification was an omission, there would be no question of supplying the omission by a strained construction not warranted by the express words used in the notification. Shri Iyer was not in a position to explain the background leading to the Government of India s Order-in-Revision referred to by the party in support of this argument. 7. On the question of the time-limit prescribed in the Central Excise Rules for raising demands for duties short-levied, Shri Iyer submitted that, at the material time, the time-limit was 12 months in terms of Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules. The demand issued by the lower authorities was, therefore, within the time-limit. 8. The Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. The crux of the matter in the present appeal is the interpretation of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the word includes is used in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or pharases occurring in the body of statutes when it is so used, i.e., those words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 empowers the Central Government to exempt by notification in the official gazette, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, any excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on such goods. It is clear that the exemption notification must set out precisely the excisable goods sought to be exempted. There can be no question of any vagueness or ambiguity about the scope of the notification. Notification No. 237/75, which is relevant to the present case, specifies only steel ingots and does not specify steel melting scrap. Though the tariff entry relating to item No. 26 of CET includes steel melting scrap along with steel ingots, there appears to be no warrant to read such an ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that no set of duty has already been availed of . The Counsel sought to interpret this Notification in such a way as to yield the result that steel melting scrap obtained in the (a) manufacture of iron and steel products from iron in any crude form or (b) manufacture of steel ingots or (c) manufacture of iron or steel products which had already paid the appropriate amount of duty of excise leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule or, as the case may be, the additional duty of Customs leviable thereon under the Customs Tariff Act, was exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon subject to the condition that no set off of duty had already been availed of. We find it difficult to uphold this contention. The plain reading of the Notification can lead only to the conclusion that steel melting scrap obtained in the manufacture of iron and steel products- from (i) iron in any crude form, or, (ii) steel ingots, or (iii) iron or steel products- which had already paid the appropriate excise duty or additional customs duty was exempted from the payment of excise duty leviable thereon subject to the condition that no set off of duty had already been av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the demand in so far as it pertained to clearances of steel melting scrap on payment of duty during the month of May, 1976 and part of June, 1976, would appear to be outside the prescribed limit of 12 months. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector have relied upon the fact that steel melting scrap was not at all indicated in classification list No. 114 of 28-4-1976 filed by the party as a product for clearance and have argued that this non-disclosure disentitled the party from the benefit of limitation under Rule 10 as it could not take advantage of its own wrong. They have further held that the mention of steel melting scrap in the classification list was only in relation to the raw material used for the manufacture of steel ingots and not as a product sought to be cleared from the Appellant s factory. The Show Cause Notice dated 21-6-1977 does not contain any allegation that part of the short-levy was caused by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Only in such an eventuality could the question of extending the period of 12 months to a period of 5 years arise. Having regard to the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
