Deemed credit on re-rollable scrap upheld where practical evidence and a general scrap declaration satisfied Rule 57G requirements.

For deemed credit under Rule 57G, re-rollable scrap may be accepted where the purchase documents describe MS re-rollable material and the surrounding circumstances show the buyer lacked a melting furnace, supporting the finding that the goods were not melting scrap. A classification reference to Heading 72.04 and the Board's circular did not displace that factual finding. A declaration describing the goods as waste and scrap re-rollable was also held sufficient, because item-wise particulars of every damaged article were not realistically practicable. On that basis, denial of credit was not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods purchased by the respondents were re-rollable scrap entitled to deemed credit under the relevant order issued under Rule 57G. (ii) Whether the declaration filed under Rule 57G was insufficient for want of individual description of damaged items.

Issue (i): Whether the goods purchased by the respondents were re-rollable scrap entitled to deemed credit under the relevant order issued under Rule 57G.

Analysis: The goods were described in the purchase bills as MS re-rollable material. The respondents had no melting furnace, so the conclusion drawn by the appellate authority was that they would not purchase melting scrap and the material received had to be treated as re-rollable scrap. The classification reference to Heading 72.04 and the Board's circular dealing with classification could not, on these facts, dislodge the finding for the purpose of deemed credit.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as re-rollable scrap and deemed credit was not liable to be denied on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration filed under Rule 57G was insufficient for want of individual description of damaged items.

Analysis: The declaration described the goods as waste and scrap re-rollable. The authorities accepted that it would be impracticable to require item-wise particulars of every damaged article such as anodes, pinned scrap, or anode scrap, because the expression scrap would cover the variety of items involved. The declaration was therefore not defective in substance.

Conclusion: The declaration under Rule 57G was sufficient and no denial of credit could follow on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to show any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below, and the denial of relief to the respondents was not justified.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of deemed credit, the nature of the scrap must be determined from the surrounding circumstances and actual use, and a practical declaration describing scrap in general terms is sufficient where item-wise description is not realistically possible.

---