TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nspecified parts of the motor vehicles and were purchased by the respondents for manufacturing M.S. rods which were classifiable under sub-item 9(2)(i) of Item No. 25 as was in existence before the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff from 28-2-1986. Without filing any declaration and without obtaining any central excise licence, they were removing their final products without payment of central excise duty on the understanding that their final products enjoyed full exemption from duty under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., aforesaid. The Department issued a show cause notice on 17-7-1985 alleging that they have manufactured steel rods falling under sub-item 9(2)(i) of Item No. 25 using flats falling under Item No. 25(9)(i) and thus w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff. The learned Collector of Central Excise had held that these inputs were classifiable under sub-item (11) of Item No. 25. We consider that the used discarded leafspring blades could not be considered as classifiable under sub-item (11) of Item No. 25 which covers the following : Angles, shapes and sections of iron or steel, not elsewhere specified, other than slotted angles and slotted channels, rolled forged, extruded, formed, finished: sheet piling of iron or steel whether or not drilled, punched or made from assembled elements. 3. The learned consultant had submitted that their products could not be classifed also under sub-item (3) of Item No. 25 as waste and scrap, as the waste and scrap had been defined in the tariff as wast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notification No. 208/83-C.E. dated 1-8-1983, as amended, was not applicable, we are not able to understand as to why the benefit of Notification No. 209/83-C.E. had not been considered. While we do not agree with the findings of the learned Collector of Central Excise that the inputs were flats, we consider that the benefit of any other applicable Notification should not be denied to them. As the matter has not proceeded in this manner, we consider that the matter had to be remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, who should consider the question of benefit under Notification No. 209/83-C.E. or any other applicable Notification. 7. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we remand this matter to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
