9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty has been demanded from them on the ground that the inputs used by them are not covered by the Headings/sub-headings mentioned in the notification and that the inputs were not 'pieces roughly shaped'. The learned Advocate submitted that off cuts of flats, bars, rods, angles, sheets, punched sheets or cuttings or end cuttings of these products whether roughly shaped or not are not waste and scrap falling under Heading 72.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act but are pieces roughly shaped falling under Heading 72.08 or alternatively angles, shapes and section falling under sub-heading 7210.10 of the Tariff. He relied upon the decision in the case of L.M.L. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.). He also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iron and steel scrap purchased from the open market which included items like trimming and forgings, and dismantled machines, old broken engineering goods, punched steel metal containers and other broken articles of iron which are non-duty paid and are not specified inputs. She also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has given a specific finding in the Adjudication Order that the words "pieces roughly shaped" had been inserted on the invoices from the traders later by the Appellants; that accordingly goods are not classifiable as "pieces roughly shaped"; that all the inputs were discarded items as there were defects. Finally the learned SDR mentioned that the Tribunal in their own case [Bhupendra Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (70) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ste and scrap does not find any mention in the Notification No. 202/88 or 90/88, the benefit of the notification has been correctly denied to them. Even in respect of earlier definition, the Appellants have not proved that the material purchased by them could be used for purposes other than for the recovery of metal. As the benefit of Notification is being sought by them, the onus is on the Appellants to prove that they have used the inputs specified in the notification. The facts in LML cases are different inasmuch as the appellants therein were working on duty paid steel sheets for the manufacture of parts of scooters and some portions of the sheets remained and some of these portions were used by the Appellants for the manufacture of sma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
