Exemption for steel ingots upheld where technologically necessary additives were used and departmental practice supported the claim.

Steel ingots manufactured with specified raw materials did not lose exemption merely because ferro-alloys, fluxing materials and other minor additives were also used. The Tribunal read the Central Excise notifications in light of the department's own quasi-judicial and administrative practice, including consistent treatment of identical issues, circulars, and similar concessions granted to other manufacturers. It held that the Collector could not depart from that settled approach to deny exemption on a restrictive reading, particularly where the assessees were similarly placed. The differential treatment was treated as discriminatory, and the duty demand was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether steel ingots manufactured with specified raw materials but also using ferro-alloys, fluxing materials and other minor additives remained eligible for exemption under the relevant Central Excise notifications, and whether the demand raised on the contrary was sustainable.

Analysis: The notifications were construed in the context of the departmental and quasi-judicial understanding already adopted in similar matters. The record showed that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity, had taken a consistent view on an identical issue, and that similar concessions had been granted within the same Collectorate as well as to other manufacturers using comparable inputs. The Tribunal held that the Collector could not disregard that earlier binding/quasi-judicial approach, especially when the departmental practice and circulars treated the use of ferro-alloys and fluxing materials as not inconsistent with the exemption. The Tribunal also treated the differential treatment meted out to the appellants as discriminatory.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption and the impugned duty demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order confirming duty liability was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department's own quasi-judicial decisions and consistent administrative interpretation accept the use of technologically necessary additives in manufacture, exemption under the notification cannot be denied to a similarly placed assessee on a restrictive reading that results in discriminatory treatment.

---