9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racteristics and uses. The two in no way can be considered as one and the same and thus at par. Coke Breeze being a byproduct of the process of coke manufacture and not utilizable as such in a blast furnace, where met coke alone fits the bill. As the two products are clearly distinct with wide variation in their sales price, we are of the view that the question of interpretation of an exemption notification and the case law analysis on this aspect of the matter does not actually arise.'
Conclusion - The benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 (Sl.No.125) cannot be extended to Coke Breeze imported by the appellants, as it is not the same as Metallurgical Coke.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Standards [IS-5451:2001] (reaffirmed in 2011), the learned advocate submitted that coke is either in lumps or fines used in or for metallurgical processes are Metallurgical Coke. He has also submitted that Coke Breeze imported by the appellants is used by them in the sintering plant to produce agglomerated Iron ore which is used in the blast furnace. He has submitted that Coke Breeze being smaller in size is not used in the blast furnace as it clogs and may inhibit flow of material. The Coke Breeze is used in Sintering Plant for agglomeration of Iron Ore Fines into useful Blast Furnace burden material, which improves the productivity of blast furnace. Thus, Coke Breeze is Metallurgical Coke used in the process of extraction of metal from Iron Ores. Coke Breeze is an integral part of raw material preparation processing and removal of impurities from the Ore. Coke Breeze performs the same function as fuel and reducing agent; therefore, the Coke Breeze comes within the meaning of 'Metallurgical Coke'. 4.2. It is further submitted that use of Coke Breeze unequivocally establishes that Coke Breeze is Metallurgical Coke used in the metallurgical industry for manufacture of iron an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that when the imported Coke Breeze is Metallurgical Coke and eligible for exemption under Notification No 12/2012 Cus dated 17.03.2012 the same cannot be denied on the basis of the CBEC Circular No 56/2003 Cus dated 27.6.2003. It is well settled law that the_Circulars contrary to law laid down by the Courts have no existence in law. The Appellants rely on the judgment of the Hon Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bolpur Vs Ratna Melting & Wire Industries - 2008 (231) ELT 22 (SC). The Appellants further submit that the impugned orders have not taken in to consideration the following factual and legal position: (i) Metallurgical Coke (whether or not agglomerated) in the form of Lumps and Fines are classified under CTH 2704 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, (ii) Met Coke in Lumps of size 12 MM and above and Coke Breeze of size 12 MM and below are manufactured through the same process of destructive distillation of Coal in Coke Ovens in Oxygen free atmosphere until the volatile components in coal evaporate. The material remaining is Coke. The Coke is filtered to segregate Met Coke of sizes above 12 MM and Coke Breeze of size 12 MM and below, (iii) Met Coke in Lumps is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that following the Board's Circular bearing No.56/2003-Cus dated 27.06.2003, the learned Commissioner has quoted that Coke Breeze and Metallurgical Coke are two different products and benefit of Notification cannot be extended to Coke Breeze. He has submitted that the issue is no more res integra and recently considered by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. [Final Order No.75097/2024 dated 30.01.2024, wherein this Tribunal after analysing various literature available and the case laws on the subject held that the Coke Breeze and Metallurgical Coke are two different products and adducing similar arguments now advanced by the appellant held that exemption to Coke Breeze under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 cannot be extended as the same is applicable to Metallurgical Coke. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The short issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is whether imported 'Coke Breeze" be eligible to the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 (Sl.No.125). Notification No 12/2012 Cus. dated 17.3.2012 (SI NO 125) granting exemption to Metallurgical Coke reads as under: Sl N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxxxxx 3. 19. Breeze- The undersize after separating the smallest size of graded coke. NOTE- Breeze is usually less than 10 mm in size." Also it need not be emphasized that it is the complete prerogative of the legislature to select objects to be taxed or determine the quantum of tax (by way of exemptions) and even the courts have held it to be so (UOIV VKC Fortsteps India Pvt. Ltd, (2021 (52) GSTL 513 S.C.). 39. From the foregoing it is clear that metallurgical coke and coke breeze are two distinct and different products having their own separate characteristics and uses. The two in no way can be considered as one and the same and thus at par. Coke Breeze being a byproduct of the process of coke manufacture and not utilizable as such in a blast furnace, where met coke alone fits the bill. As the two products are clearly distinct with wide variation in their sales price, we are of the view that the question of interpretation of an exemption notification and the case law analysis on this aspect of the matter does not actually arise. Language employed in statute is the determination of legislative intent (UOI Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008(231)ELT 3 (SC). Nonetheless, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
