Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (7) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under. 3.The appellants are manufacturer of iron and steel products i.e. C.T. Bars, Round Bars and flat bars exceeding 5mm. in thickness and falling under Chapter Heading 72.09 of the CETA. They purchased ship breaking scrap of iron and steel as raw material (inputs) falling under Chapter Heading 72.15 of the CETA for their final products. They could not claim exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. as ship breaking scrap as input was not mentioned at S. No. 2 in column 2 of the Table annexed thereto but they wrongly availed the benefit of this Notification and did not pay the duty at appropriate leviable rate on their final products. They cleared prod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , as payment of 25% of the appropriate duty in pursuance of the orders of the Honourable Gujarat High Court did not amount to payment of duty at appropriate rate under Section 3 of the Central Excises Act and as such exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was not available to them. Regarding the ship breaking scrap purchased from the open market the Collector had observed the benefit of this notification would be available to the appellants only if those were duty paid and were not recognizable as non-duty paid. He directed the Assistant Collector to revise the demand accordingly. He also rejected the plea of the appellants that the demand was time barred. 4.Feeling dissatisfied with this order passed by the Collector the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has contended that since the ship breaking scrap as inputs used by the appellants after purchasing directly from the ship breaking companies was not fully duty paid at appropriate rate in terms of Section 3 of the Act, the benefit of the notification in question on the final products could not be legally claimed by them. Therefore, the impugned order of the Collector is perfectly valid and not been passed beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 8.We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 9.The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants had purchased the ship breaking scrap (inputs) for manufacture of their final products partly from the ship breaking companies and partly from the open market. The payment of 25% of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mand has to be redetermined with reference to the factual position prevailing in each case. He has thus not ruled out the availability of benefit of exemption notification to the appellants provided the inputs (ship breaking scrap) purchased by them from the open market were proved to be duty paid. He has directed the Assistant Collector to redetermine the duty amount accordingly. There is no cogent reason to disagree with this view of the Collector especially when there is no material on record to suggest that ship breaking scrap used as inputs purchased from the open market by the appellants were duty paid in terms of Section 3 of the Act. No presumption regarding the payment of duty thereon can be drawn especially when the payment of onl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re made known that they had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. to which they were not otherwise entitled to. Therefore the Collector cannot be said to have travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices while disallowing the benefit of the said notification to them. The ratio of the law laid down in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 67 and 1992 (62) E.L.T. 40 is not attracted to the facts of the present case, in the light of the discussion made above. 12.Consequently the first ground raised by the counsel, fails. 13.This takes us to second ground. No doubt, in view of the ratio of the law laid down in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 154 and 2000 (117) E.L.T. 65, the Collector could not delegate the power to the Assistant Collector for re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates