TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not claim any refund. Apart from the consistent view taken by the Tribunal as noted, we are also of the view that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Steel Strips (1995 (5) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) in that there was no proof whatsoever of the marketability of the cold rolled strips which is an essential item of "manufacture" for the purposes of the Act. Marketability is a question of fact and does not follow from the mere mention of the item in the ISI. The decisions of the High Court and the Revisional Authority upholding the demand are accordingly set aside and the demand of the Revenue is quashed. Although there is no question of refund of the Excise duty paid on the cold rolled strips raised, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aleable and treated as completed manufactured product. According to the appellant what came out from the mill were not cold rolled strips until they were trimmed/sheared and cut to proper length according to the customers requirement. The residue was scrap which were of three kinds : viz., side trimmings, crop ends and reversible mill ends and could not be treated as cold rolled strips. There is some controversy as to whether duty had been paid by ITCO on the residue treating the same as scrap. The revisional application was however rejected on the ground that the Indian Standard Specification Nos. 1956 to 1962 specified that a strip "is supplied in straight length or in coil with mill, trimmed or sheared edges". From this definition the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revisional Authority on the issue of marketability was also held to be correct. The writ petition was accordingly rejected on 11th February, 1976 but the respondents were directed to refund the amount as claimed by ITCO in accordance with the revisional order. 5.In 1985, ITCO was amalgamated with the appellant. The appellant challenged the order of the Single Judge before the Division Bench. The Division Bench rejected the appeal in July, 1986 by the order which has been impugned before us. Although, the appeal was dismissed unfortunately the appellant court also set aside the revisional order insofar as it held that the reversible mill ends were not cold rolled strips and that these were to be treated as scrap and consequently the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the relevant time was as follows :- "26AA: Iron or Steel products the following, namely, (III) flats, skeips and strips" 8.It is to be noted that there was no separate heading in respect of cold rolled strips and hot rolled strips. It is not in dispute that the duty was paid on the hot rolled strips treating the same as assessable under 26AA(III). The strips having already been subjected to excise under the tariff heading, it was open to the assessee to have argued that no further duty was payable on the strips in any subsequent form. On the other hand, the assessee has also paid duty on the strips after shearing and slitting. However, the assessee does not claim any refund. Apart from the consistent view taken by the Tribunal as n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
