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

1979 (8) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , are a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They carry on business of manufacturing mild steel rounds and flats (hereinafter referred to as `the said products') at their factory at Moosapet. The manufacture of the said products is made from duty paid steel ingots supplied by other manufacturers. On 22/23rd September, 1969, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, stating that they would like to purchase duty paid steel ingots and enquiring whether they were entitled for exemption from duty on the products made out of duty paid steel ingots. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased between 17-10-1969 and 31-12-1979 226.56 tons of duty paid steel ingots supplied by other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. The petitioners were again served with a show cause notice dated 29-3-1971 under Rule 10 of the said Rules alleging that during the period 30-12-1969 to 26-3-1970 the petitioners received 351.51 metric tons of steel ingots as scrap in Form IV register and re-rolled M.S. rods on the said raw material, that the said products were cleared without payment of excise duty despite the fact that they were excisable and calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,575.50 ps. should not be recovered from them. The petitioners replied to the said notice and denied the liability. The second respondent by his order dated 10-4-1972 confirmed the order of demand and called upon the petitioners to pay the excise du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated 10-4-1972. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the claim of the petitioners that the products manufactured by them from duty paid M.S. ingots are exempted from duty under Notification No. 206/63 dated 30-11-1963 as amended by Notification No. 123/65 dated 14-8-1965 is denied. It is emphatically stated that the exemption is applicable only in respect of ingots which are cut and broken in shapes similar to those described in sub-item (i) of the Tariff Item No 26AA but not in respect of ingots which are not cut or broken. It is further averred that this issue was never raised or canvassed before the appellate authorities in any of the two appeals filed by the petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 2. This Notification shall come into force on the first day of December, 1963." "M.F. (D.R.) NOTFN. C. Ex. No. 123/65, dated 14-8-1965. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 206/63-Central Excise, dated the 30th November, 1963, namely :- In the said notification, in paragraph one, after item (iii) the following item shall be and shall be deemed always to have been inserted, namely - (iv) ingots, on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid, cut or broken (but not rolled) in any shape resem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Petition that the steel ingots purchased by them were broken into pieces and were entered into RG 4 register as scrap and it was out of the said scrap ingots that the petitioners re-rolled 191,98 tons of Mild Steel Rods. It is true as contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the plea of exemption under the said notification was raised only for the first time before the Government of India, and not either before the Appellate Collector or before the Assistant Collector. But it is the case of the Respondents that this quantity of steel ingots was shown as scrap in RG 4 Register. In view of the said admission, I feel it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the ingots received were .....

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