2002 (5) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. is available to the iron & steel products manufactured by M/s. Bharat Agriculture Implements & Re-rolling Mills.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s. Bharat Agriculture Implements & Re-rolling Mills questions the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. to their iron & steel products. The Appellants manufacture various products like M.S. Rounds, Bars, Flats, Angles, etc. using re-rollable inputs, including ship breaking scrap. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty against them, citing that as ship breaking scrap had not suffered excise duty, the final products were liable to duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter for duty determination based on previous decisions. The Appellants argued that they attached gate passes issued by ship breakers to their invoices, some of which indicated payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal for various periods, leading to this appeal.

In response to the Appellants' arguments, the learned DR emphasized that the benefit of the notification is subject to excise duty already being paid on specified inputs. Referring to legal precedents, the DR highlighted that if raw materials are not liable to excise duty, the notification does not apply. The DR cited cases where similar issues were addressed, emphasizing the importance of duty payment on inputs for the notification to be applicable.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal observed that the Appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of duty payment on scrap purchased directly from ship breakers. The gate passes did not conclusively prove duty payment, and without such proof, the benefit of the notification could not be extended for the first period. For subsequent periods, gate passes indicated exemption from duty payment, rendering the notification inapplicable. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions that clarified the duty status of ship-breaking inputs and upheld the requirement of duty payment for the notification to apply. As the inputs were exempted from duty, the Appellants were not eligible for the notification's benefit. The appeal was consequently rejected.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical legal interpretations and precedents considered by the Tribunal in determining the applicability of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. to the iron & steel products manufactured by M/s. Bharat Agriculture Implements & Re-rolling Mills.