TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bile parts, old oil engines etc. 2. Shri Shiv Das, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Wire rods/bars, etc., falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that one of the raw materials used by them in the manufacture of these products was re-rollable material in the form of scrap, purchased by them from kabadis; that the kabadis used to purchase the scrap in auction conducted by different Government departments such as Defence, Railways, integrated Steel plants, etc.; that since the re-rollable material was purchased from the traders, they considered them to be duty paid; they were clearing the finished product claiming the exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E.; that according....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the entire demand is time barred as extended period of limitation is not invokable; that the impugned Order sets outs in great details the views expressed by the various Commissionerates on the eligibility of old used and unserviceable materials as inputs for the purpose of identically worded predecessor Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983; that the Commissioner had also set out the practice followed by the Kanpur Commissionerate wherein such old & used re-rollable materials were considered as inputs for the purpose of Notification No. 202/88-C.E.; that as per the impugned Order, views expressed by the Kanpur Commissionerate were endorsed by Madurai and Belgaum Commissionerates; that it is thus evident that even among the Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not the product of manufacturing process; they are not excisable. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Indian Plastics Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 268 (Tribunal-LB) = 2000 (70) ECC 242 (T) in which the Larger Bench of the Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Machine Builders v. CCE - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 576, wherein it was held that the correct view is that the words "inputs are clearly recognisable as being non duty paid comprehend all inputs on which it is patent that duty has actually not been paid for any reason i.e. rate of duty is stated to be nil rate in the Schedule to the Tariff Act, or the inputs are wholly exempt from duty or for any other reason. "The ld. DR also mentioned that the Coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the impugned Order that "it is not disputed that old and used re-rollable material of iron or Steel was purchased by the party from the Kabaries, which has arisen out of natural wear and tear and not on account of manufacturing activities. This fact has been deposed by the suppliers (Kabaries) in their various statements (RUD 4 referred to), wherein they had stated that they had never purchased duty-paid mild steel scrap from any factory and the scrap supplied to M/s. Mohan Steels Ltd. was not chargeable to Central Excise duty." One of the condition of the Notification No. 202/88-C.E. is that the final products are made from specified goods on which the duty of excise leviable under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act has alrea....