9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standard rate of duty according to Tariff for the appellants product at the material time 1-3-1966 to 30-1-1967 was as under : Item No. 26AA : (i) Semi-finished steel including billets. ₹ 50 per metric tonne plus the excise duty for the time being leviable on the steel ingots. (ii) All products falling under item like bars etc. ₹ 50 per metric tonne plus the excise duty for the time being leviable on steel ingots. Parties agreed that according to Tariff Item No. 26, at the material time Steel Ingots had to suffer duty at the rate of ₹ 75/- per metric tonne. Notification No. 133/65-C.E., dated 20-8-1965 so far as material for this appeal exempted Iron and Steel Products falling under T.I. 26AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from so much of the duty of Excise leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entries in column-3 of the table annexed to the Notification, subject to condition set out therein. Parties agreed that for the present appeal, the relevant item is at Sl. No. 1 of the Table, which is extracted below : Sl. No. Description Duty per m.t. &em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 7-8-1984, he agreed that this notification had been rescinded on 1-3-1964. He therefore gave up this part of his claim. Shri Daya Sagar then next argued that Tariff Item No. 26AA, extracted above spoke of duty at the rate of ₹ 50/- per metric tonne plus Excise duty for the time being leviable on steel ingots. In the process of manufacture employed by the appellants Steel Ingots did not at all come into existence. Ingot stage is skipped in the manufacture of billets. There is no taxable event justifying the levy of duty on ingots. Therefore, Excise duty for the time being leviable on Steel ingots would not be included in determining duty leviable on the appellant's goods. This argument need not detain us long because the same is squarely covered by Supreme Court decision in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1978 E.L.T. J 355 relied on by the learned SDR for the respondent. In para 4 of the majority decision, the Supreme Court interpreting an identical provision, held as under : "The word 'plus' in the context indicates that the rate of duty consists of 2 parts: one part is ad valorem duty and the other is the excise duty calcu- lated according to the formula give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin and Ors. - 1981 E.L.T. J 375; (ii) Aryodaya Spg. and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1981 E.L.T. 274 (Gujarat); (iii) M/s. Kirloskar Cummins Kothrud, Pune - G.O.I. Order in Review No. 521-B/81, dated 21-10-1981 = 1982 E.L.T. 698 (G.O.I.); (iv) J.B. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.- 1983 E.C.R. 117D (Delhi) ; (v) Orient Paper Mills, Brajrajnagar v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1983 E.L.T. 1813 (CEGAT) and (vi) The Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors. - 1980 Tax Law Reports 1643. The Explanation dated 29-4-1969 in Notification No. 133/65-C.E., inserted by the amending notification cannot be said to be declaratory. In Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with an amendment introduced by a subsequent notification dated September 28, 1963 which introduced meaning of the term 'Hanks' w.e.f. 1-10-1963. The Supreme Court said that the definition could not be made use of for the purpose of main notification dated 15-9-1962. The Gujarat High Court in Aryodaya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 70/62 exempted products under Item 26AA if made from steel ingots on which appropriate duty has been paid from so much of duty as equivalent to duty leviable under Item 26. On 29-4-1964 an Explanation was added to Notification No. 133/65 which provided, inter alia, that the steel products in column (2) shall be deemed to have been made from steel ingots on which duty has already been paid if manufactured with the aid of electric furnace from old scrap or duty paid melting scrap. 10. The appellants contend that till 1965 billets were always manufactured only out of steel ingots. For the first time, they set up a sophisticated plant to produce billets by a process of direct casting. At first, they claimed that the cast steel billets should be treated as steel ingots and charged duty at ₹ 75/- per M.T., but this was not agreed to and ₹ 125/- per M.T. was charged. Later they stated that the duty on billets was only ₹ 50/- and not ₹ 125/- and since no ingots came into being, ingot stage duty of ₹ 75/- per M.T. was not chargeable and claimed refund. These contentions were negatived hence the Revision Application dated 22-1-1979 transferred by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iguities and doubts with regard to the rate at which cast billets should be taxed and it is clear that the exemption from ingot duty should be given to such products if made from the specified raw materials. 12. In the subject case the product, though rectangular in shape like a billet was a cast product like an ingot and Shri Daya Sagar argued that the products are semis or castings and not billets. When ingot duty is under Tariff Item 26 it would be absurd to recover it under Item 26AA when no ingot ever came into existence. Besides, Notification No. 53/64 dated 1-3-1964 exempts ingots made from unused steel melting scrap or any material on which duty has already been paid. 13. The ambiguity referred to in para 4 has to be seen in the context of amendment on 29-4-1964 (69?) to Notification No. 133/65 adding the Explanation. This deeming fiction regarding ingots was necessary in order to clarify the ambiguity. It could not introduce into the meaning of the notification or the tariff item itself, anything that was not already implicit or inherent in the statute. According to the very decision relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, (1981 E.L.T. 355), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
