9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment, Indore. By the impugned order, demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 8,02,587.06 was confirmed alongwith penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- and confiscation of the seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/-. The appellants were engaged in manufacture of iron and steel products classifiable under chapter heading 214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as was in force at the relevant time. The product manufactured by the appellants and relevant for the consideration comprises of twisted iron and steel bars. The appellants claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20.05.1988 read with Notification No. 170/89-CE dated 16.08.1989. The department sought to deny the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 170/89-CE read with Notification No. 202/88-CE had ruled thus:- "On a plain reading of the Notification No. 202/88-CE itself, it is very clear that bars and rods of Iron either hot rolled, hot drawn or hot extruded or cold formed/cold finished are exempted from duty. It has been shown by the appellants that the goods have come into existence by a process of cold formed/cold finished, after it is hot drawn. Both hot drawn and cold finished are exempted from the ambit of the notification. Now the question is as to whether this twisting is further worked or not, and thus excluded from the Notification. The answer to this can be found from the items referred to in the bracket, which refers to the excluded items, namely, excluding bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawn or hot extruded , and not after the words cold rolled or cold finished , therefore, it is indicative of these goods having occurred from the process of hot rolled only and not cold formed. It is difficult to appreciate this proposition. The reason being that if such an understanding is placed then it would mean that twisted bars have arisen out of hot rolled bars and then it would support the appellants contention that the twisting is only a completion of hot rolled process. In any case, we do not wish to dwell much on this point in the absence of technical literature but suffice to say that the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of legislative intention, it is clear that these goods were intended to be exempted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature and, therefore, the benefit of exemption available under Notification No. 202/88-CE was extended to the twisted bars retrospectively. Obviously, therefore, the appellants were entitled to avail the benefit of the said notification during the period from May, 1988 to June, 1989 which is the period for which the show cause notice was issued. Obviously, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside while accepting the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants. Hence, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and appellants are held to be entitled for the benefit of the said notification for the relevant period. Appeal is accordingly allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
