TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,20,819.00. By Order-in-Appeal No. 150/99-C.E., dated 5-2-99 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the first Appellate authority had upheld the Order-in-Original on the ground that since the waste and scrap of steel is exempted under Notification No. 208/83 dated 1-8-83, therefore the entire stock of waste and scrap of steel in the market would obviously be clearly recognisable as non-duty payable. He, therefore, submitted that this was enough for the department to discharge their burden of proof to show that such goods would be clearly non-duty paid. If they were non-duty paid, then obviously the question of giving any deemed duty credit thereon would not arise, as such deemed credit was only available to offset the cascading effect of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7203.20 in the said column. Hence the very best at which the order impugned has held that such steel scrap being exempted when purchased from the market was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid has no basis in law. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned has committed error in application of law and needs to be set aside. 5. In this connection, he also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arti Steel Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 166 (Tri. ) = 1999 (30) RLT 318 (CEGAT) as also the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Machine Builders v. CCE as in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 576 (Tri.) = 1996 (12) RLT 817(Tri.). He submits that the bottom-line upheld in both these decisions is that for the purposes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly considered these submissions and records of the case. We find that during the material period, Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 made a clear distinction between waste and scrap of iron and waste and scrap of steel. The former fell under Sub-heading 7203.10 while the latter fell under Sub-heading 7203.20. 8. We also find that Notification 208/83 exempts final products has clearly specified under column No. 3 thereof. A perusal of Sl. No. (i) thereof shows that while Sub-heading 7203.10 is clearly specified therein, there is no mention of the Sub-heading 7203.20. Therefore, we find that the import of this is while the said Notification exempts the final products namely waste and scrap of iron, it did not encompass into i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is and findings, we find that the order impugned needs to be set aside as the deemed credit was rightly taken and the appeal needs to be allowed with consequential relief, as per law. Ordered accordingly. 12. In Appeal No. E/1835/99 against the same Order-in-Appeal as mentioned above, the deemed credit sought to be denied is Rs. 5,54,712.10. Ld. Advocate submits that in this case this was the amount of deemed credit claim and sought to be availed in terms of Rule 57H, as on 31-3-86 when a declaration was filed to the effect that this amount was involved on the stocks already in the factory lying as inputs. However, this was denied by the order impugned and the attendant Order-in-Original on the same grounds as already considered above na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
