Melting scrap classification and limitation in excise: end cuttings sold for melting, and extended period not available without evasion.

End cuttings sold for melting were treated as melting scrap under Item 26 rather than re-rollable bars under Item 26AA, because goods capable of re-rolling are classified differently and these materials were supplied to electric furnace units for melting. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked where duty had already been paid in substance through the RG-23/Rule 56A account, the officers were aware of the manufacturing and credit procedure, and there was no deliberate evasion. A further demand would have caused double payment, so the classification point failed but the demand was unsustainable on limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the end cuttings were classifiable as re-rollable bars under Item 26AA or as melting scrap under Item 26 of the Central Excise Tariff. (ii) Whether the Department could invoke the extended period and demand duty again when the assessee had already paid duty through the RG-23/Rule 56A account.

Issue (i): Whether the end cuttings were classifiable as re-rollable bars under Item 26AA or as melting scrap under Item 26 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The Board's Tariff Advice distinguished between end cuttings capable of being re-rolled, which would fall under Item 26AA, and end cuttings not capable of re-rolling, which would be treated as melting scrap under Item 26. The materials in question were admittedly sold to electric furnace units for melting, which supported the finding that they were not re-rollable products.

Conclusion: The end cuttings were correctly treated as melting scrap, not as re-rollable bars.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department could invoke the extended period and demand duty again when the assessee had already paid duty through the RG-23/Rule 56A account.

Analysis: Although the assessee had mistakenly routed payment through RG-23 instead of PLA, the records showed payment of duty and the officers were aware of the manufacturing process and the Rule 56A procedure. The mistake did not amount to deliberate evasion, and a fresh demand would have resulted in double payment of duty. Accordingly, the extended period was not available.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked and the further demand was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The classification finding went against the assessee, but the demand failed on limitation and on the ground that duty had already been paid through the prescribed credit account; the appeal was therefore allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are shown to be sold for melting, they may be treated as melting scrap rather than re-rollable products, but a fresh excise demand cannot be sustained by invoking the extended period when duty has already been paid in substance and the facts do not show deliberate evasion.

---