1993 (6) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Collector's Decision on Exemption Claim for Steel Ingot Inputs

BHUPENDRA STEEL (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) finding that the inputs used in manufacturing steel ingots were waste and scrap of ... Steel Ingots Issues:Classification of inputs used in manufacturing steel ingots under Central Excise Tariff and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-CE.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Facts:The case involves the classification of inputs used by the appellants in manufacturing steel ingots falling under sub-item 6(ii) of Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arises from a show cause notice seeking to recover duty on the steel ingots manufactured by the appellants, alleging that the inputs used did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-CE.2. Appellants' Argument:The appellants claimed that the inputs used were pieces roughly shaped by forging or rolling, falling under Tariff Item 25(8), and thus eligible for exemption under the notification. They argued that the inputs were defectively forged and could not be used for their intended purpose, making them suitable for melting.3. Revenue's Argument:The Revenue contended that the inputs purchased from scrap dealers were waste and scrap fit only for melting, falling under Tariff Item 25(3), and not covered under the exemption notification. They argued that the inputs did not qualify as pieces roughly shaped by forging or rolling as per the relevant definitions.4. Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal examined the provisions of Notification No. 208/83-CE, which exempted steel ingots manufactured from specified inputs. It considered the definitions of Tariff Item 25(3) and 25(8) to determine the classification of the inputs used by the appellants.5. Decision:The Tribunal found that the inputs, such as M.S. trimmings, rings, punched sheets, etc., used by the appellants were not pieces roughly shaped by forging or rolling as per Tariff Item 25(8). Instead, they were deemed to be waste and scrap of iron and steel falling under Tariff Item 25(3), which was not specified in the exemption notification. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) finding that the inputs were waste and scrap, not eligible for exemption.6. Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision clarified the classification of inputs used in manufacturing steel ingots under the Central Excise Tariff and the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-CE. It emphasized that the inputs must align with the specified categories to qualify for exemption, and in this case, the inputs were considered waste and scrap, not falling under the exempted category.