TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (for short 'the Act') against Final Order No.186/2002-B dated 14.05.2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.E/5482/92-B. 2. The point involved in this appeal is, whether the final products manufactured by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No.208/83-CE dated 1.8.1983, as amended from time to time. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal, are as under: 4. Appellant-assessee, hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee' is engaged in the manufacture of Steel bars and rods falling under sub-heading 7228.30 and steel ingots falling under sub-heading 7226.20 of Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and steel including small percentage of sample pieces of rods, flats end cutting, on which duty might not have been paid at the time of clearance. 7. In its replies to the each of the three show cause notices referred to above, the assssee reiterated that all the inputs which had been used by the assessee are classifiable only under sub-item (8) of erstwhile T.I. 25 because all these goods are roughly shaped and have not been specified anywhere else. T.I. 25 (8) of the erstwhile Tariff read as under: - "(8) Pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel, not elsewhere specified". 8. Prior to 28.2.1986 the Central Excise Tariff was contained in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Consequent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 11. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the benefit of the notifications is available to an assessee who used specified inputs. In the present case, the claim made by the assessee has been that the inputs used were "pieces roughly shaped". These are described as such in all the three notifications where the reference is specifically to "pieces roughly shaped". 12. The Assistant Commissioner in her order held that they are not pieces roughly shaped under 7208.00 but are melting scrap which is not duty paid. She also found that the words "pieces roughly shaped" had been inserted later in the invoices from the traders. It was further held that inputs brought in by the assessee are neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and this Court in Bhupendera Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2002) 7 SCC 528] held that tariff Item 25(8), as it then was, would not cover pieces of bars, rods, flats, etc. which are cut-off from the main item. This Court also took note of the Revenue's allegation that the assessee had purchased the ends of flats from scrap dealers, which had not been denied. This also indicates that ends of flats do not fall under Item 25(8). Since the Notification does not cover either "waste and scrap" or "flats", the assessee would not be entitled to exemption under Notification No.208/83. It was further held that it was for the assessee to show under what sub-item the inputs used by them fall. Since they did not fall under sub-item (8) of T.I. 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 72 or 73 of the said Schedule on which the duty of excise leviable under the said Schedule or the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has already been paid: Provided further that no credit of the duty paid on the inputs has been taken under rule 56A or rule 57A of the said rules. Explanation - For the purposes of this notification, all stocks of inputs in the country, except such stocks as are clearly recognizable as being non-duty paid, shall be deemed to be inputs on which duty has already been paid. S. No. Description of inputs Description of final products (1) (2) (3) 01. XXX XXX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be flat rolled "products" or iron. As held by this Court, pieces of bars, rods, flat etc., which are cut off from the main item, cannot qualify as pieces which are roughly shaped by rolling or forging. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the definition of "waste and scrap" as given in Note 6 to Section XV of the Tariff. Prior to 1988 the definition read as under: "Waste and scrap of iron or steel fit only for the recovery of metal or for use in the manufacture of chemicals, but does not include slag, ash and other resides." 20. The definition 1988 onwards read as under: "Metal waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals, and metal goods definitely not usable as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
