TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 111 105-CE/Appl/CHG/82 83, dated 10-11-1983 (copy enclosed). In view of my findings in the said order-in-appeal, I allow this appeal. In the order referred to in this order, the Collector (Appeals) had held : In view of the foregoing discussions, I uphold both the pleas of the appellant, namely (i) that runners and risers are steel ingots or steel melting scrap depending upon what they are fit for, and (ii) that the relevant exemption notifications (in the instant case 156/79, dated 9-4-1979 and 53/80, dated 18-5-1980) are applicable not only to steel ingots but also to steel melting scrap. I am aware that the latter finding is contrary to Appellate Tribunal s decision in the aforesaid case of Ravindra Steels. I have come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 8 of the judgment had held : ******* that the Tribunal in subsequent judgments in the case of B.D. Steel Castings Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 1013, in the case of Modern Steel Ltd. reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 165 and in the case of Vishvakarma Steels reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 169 had consistently held that steel ingots and melting scrap were two different commodities and that the exemption under Notification No. 237/75 as amended was applicable only to steel ingots and not to melting scrap. When the respondent pointed out that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. and Mehta Alloys and Steel Works reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 205 (SC) = 1990 (27) ECR 289 had held : 5. One of the reasons wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from re-opening such matters which were taken to be settled due to its actions. Further from perusal of notices issued to different petitioners some appear to be wholly beyond six months and others partly. For instance, notice was issued to M/s. D.B.A. Steel Pvt. Ltd., Punjab on 24-12-1981 for period 20-1-1979 to 4-8-1981. Similarly, notice to Pratap Steels Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab was issued on 17-9-1979 for period 15-7-1977 to 8-4-1979. The period within six months was from 10th March, 1978 only. Therefore, one of the questions that shall arise and which has been kept open by Tribunal is if notices beyond six months were barred by time. 7. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, but not as precedent, we refrain from entering into dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39/29/73-CX. 4, dated 28-3-1973 and its reiteration under letter F. No. 139/29/73-CX. 4, dated 29-11-1979 were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal; that the Board had clarified : In this connection it is clarified that description of Item 26 reads as `Steel Ingots including Steel Melting scrap . The notification referred to above, therefore, should be read in the context of the tariff description and not in isolation. Thus, the exemption contemplated in the aforesaid Notification relates not only to Steel Ingots but also to Steel Melting scrap arising in Electric Furnace units. that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Mehta Alloys had considered this clarification of the Board and had come to the decision a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides as also the contents of the Board s circular. We find that on the one hand there are four judgments rendered by the Tribunal holding that Runners and Risers cannot be considered as Steel ingots. We also observe that while arriving at these decisions this Tribunal had in mind its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Ravindra Steel. We also observe that the question of issue of clarification by the Board was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. We also find that while deciding the case of Ravindra Steel, the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Mehta Alloys. We also observe that no doubt, the Hon ble Supreme Court had indicated that this decision should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of the Bench to paragraphs 5, 6 7 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Alloys Steel Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 205 (SC) = 1990 (27) ECR 289 (SC) and to bring home his point he submitted that if the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside, it may result in harsh economic difficulty of some as appellants are secondary or small manufacturers who because of Board s clarification cleared the goods as steel ingots without any objection from the Department. He contended that from a perusal of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Ravindra Steels Ltd., supra, it would appear that the Board s clarification under its letters dated 28-3-1975 and 29-11-197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
