TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- had also been imposed. 2. Prior to September, 1991 appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various Iron and Steel items falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These were made in their unit with the aid of electric arc furnace. In September, 1991 they started a Rolling Mill for the manufacture of non-alloy steel flats, plain round and C.T.D. bars, angle channel shapes and sections. For the manufacture of the products in the Rolling Mill, they began to captively consume M.S. Ingots and billets manufactured by them without payment of duty claiming benefit under Notification No. 217/86. In their Modvat declaration dated 30-9-1991 they declared steel billets, steel ingots, sorts and bars falling under sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been eligible for availing Modvat credit on the said inputs. They also contended that steel billets/ingots manufactured by them were intermediate products which were further rolled into various sections portion of their production had been used in the manufacture of CTD bars, rounds, angles, channels, flats etc. 4. Turning down these contentions the Collector, Central Excise observed that though it was not in dispute that only steel billets/ingots are the inputs for the products, steel flats, rounds, CTD bars, angles, channels etc. steel billets and ingots themselves were manufactured from various other inputs like mixed alloy steel, processed steel, rejected slab, Ferro aluminium etc. In their declaration dated 30-9-1991 they had de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use of steel ingots/billets in the manufacture of the final product. Their only fault according to the learned Consultant was that they had not declared them as intermediate products. This was only a procedural lapse which should have been condoned. He also submitted that since the appellants were paying duty on their final products like CTD bars, angles, shapes etc. and since the inputs had already been declared there was no need to file a separate declaration as Notification No. 217/86 required only Chapter description. In the instant case both the final products and the inputs were covered by the same Chapter 72 and therefore the appellants had fully complied with the requirements of Rule 57A. He also drew attention to Rule 57D(2) which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by Rule 57D(2). We find that this argument has some force. In Collector of Central Excise v. DCW Ltd. [1992 (58) E.L.T. 300] the Tribunal had taken the view that as to what is an intermediate or a final product, the scheme of Modvat has to be read in the context of the manufacturing process of a particular assessee. The Tribunal had observed : So long as it can be shown that the inputs have been used for the manufacture of any inprocess materials which are used in the manufacture of the final product, the said material manufactured out of the inputs before it is finally used in the manufacture of the declared final product will have to be treated as intermediate products. In the instant case it is not in dispute that re-rollab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
