Re-rollable scrap exemption turns on source-wise eligibility, with ship-breaking scrap excluded and market purchases needing separate scrutiny.

Re-rollable scrap obtained from ship-breaking yards was treated as outside Notification No. 202/88-C.E., while market-purchased re-rollable scrap required separate examination because source-wise eligibility affected both exemption and consequential Modvat credit. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions, upheld by the Supreme Court, had denied the exemption for ship-breaking scrap, and that Board clarification distinguished re-rollable material from waste and scrap under Heading 7204. As the lower authorities had not segregated the invoices or properly re-examined the evidence on that basis, the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with a fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether re-rollable scrap/material obtained from ship-breaking yards was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. dated 20-5-1988. (ii) Whether the matter required remand for fresh examination of the invoices and evidence relating to market purchases, ship-breaking scrap, and Modvat credit.

Issue (i): Whether re-rollable scrap/material obtained from ship-breaking yards was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. dated 20-5-1988.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had denied the exemption where the inputs were scrap obtained from ship-breaking units, and those decisions had been upheld by the Apex Court. At the same time, the Board's clarification stated that re-rollable material could not be treated as waste and scrap falling under Heading 7204 merely because of its description. The distinction between scrap from ship-breaking yards and re-rollable scrap purchased from the market was therefore material to the exemption claim.

Conclusion: Re-rollable scrap from ship-breaking yards was not entitled to the exemption, while the claim in respect of market purchases had to be examined separately.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for fresh examination of the invoices and evidence relating to market purchases, ship-breaking scrap, and Modvat credit.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not undertaken the required segregation of invoices between scrap from ship-breaking sources and scrap purchased from the market. It also noted that the issue had already been clarified by Tribunal decisions and by the Board's circular, and that the evidence on record needed re-examination in that legal backdrop. The Tribunal therefore considered a de novo exercise necessary so that the admissible benefit, if any, could be identified on the basis of the source of the inputs and the applicable precedent.

Conclusion: The matter required remand for de novo consideration with a direction to re-examine the evidence and grant hearing to the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the proceedings were sent back for fresh adjudication limited to the admissibility of exemption for market-purchased re-rollable scrap and the consequential Modvat credit claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the source-wise eligibility of re-rollable scrap affects exemption and credit entitlement, and the lower authority has not examined the evidence in light of binding precedent and Board clarification, the matter must be remanded for de novo consideration; scrap from ship-breaking yards remains outside the exemption.

---