Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2000 (5) TMI 757 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
1. Excisability of molten iron 2. Eligibility of pig iron for exemption under Notification 281/87-C.E. 3. Liability of uncoated non-alloy steel plates under Notification 217/86 Excisability of Molten Iron: The Tribunal, following a previous decision and a Supreme Court confirmation, ruled that molten iron, maintained at a high temperature for further use, is not in a marketable condition and hence not excisable. The Tribunal relied on the case of TISCO v. Commr. of Central Excise and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. Eligibility of Pig Iron for Exemption: The Tribunal, based on a previous decision in the respondent's own case, held that pig iron used captively in manufacturing machinery parts for repairs and maintenance, qualifies for exemption under Notification 281/86. Despite the creation of intermediate castings and forgings, the pig iron was deemed eligible for the exemption. Liability of Uncoated Non-Alloy Steel Plates: In a previous case, the Tribunal had denied the benefit of exemption under Notification 217/86 for uncoated non-alloy steel plates used in manufacturing splashed plates. However, the respondent argued that splashed plates were essentially steel plates cut to size and used in a specific manner. The respondent presented new facts and referred to a relevant circular, which were not considered earlier. The Tribunal found these new facts relevant and decided to remand the issue to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision based on the additional information provided. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals concerning the first and second issues but remanded the third issue to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|