9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond class untested rails into M.S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of Re-rolling. Accordingly, the quantity of 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails was supplied to the appellant by the 5th respondent during the period between 29-4-1964 to 23-2-1966 and the appellant duly executed the work and delivered the M.S. Rounds and received the Re-rolling charges in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The last delivery of the finished products was effected by the appellant on 23-2-1966. 3. Nearly eight months thereafter, on October 17, 1966 the Inspector of Central Excise, Ameerpet issued notices to the appellant dated October 17, 1966 demanding payment of excise duty on the Rounds Re-rolled by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sort sought to be made to the provisions contained in Rule 10A was not legal or warranted. Neither of the aforesaid contentions found favour with the High Court and accordingly. The Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 5. The description of goods given in Column No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Act against Item No. 26-AA(i) as it stood at the relevant time was in the following terms:- "Semi finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, rods, coils, wires, joists, girders, angles, channels, tees, beams, zeds, trough, piling and all other rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections; not otherwise specified." In execution of the contract entered into between the appellant and the 5th responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Re-rolling untested rails on which no excise duty whatever had been paid. It is only if the appropriate amount of duty had already been paid on the article which formed the raw-material for manufacture of the product covered by Item No. 26-AA, that the manufacturer will be entitled to a proporionate remission of the duty on the latter product. Inasmuch as the untested rails were exempt from duty and hence no amount whatever had been paid by way of duty on the said article from out of which the M.S. Rounds were manufactured, it is obvious that the benefit of the Notification cannot be claimed by the appellant. 7. We have therefore, no hesitation to uphold the view expressed by the High Court that the M.S. Rounds manufactured by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
