1996 (11) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal decision: Exemption denied due to input classification error. Remand for fresh consideration.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT found that the respondents were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. due to the incorrect ... Classification Issues: Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 208/83-CE, classification of inputs, applicability of Notification No. 209/83-C.E., duty liability under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., consideration of other applicable Notifications.In the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 208/83-CE and the classification of inputs used by the respondents, M/s Mahaveer Steel Rolling Mills. The respondents purchased used leafspring blades from Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. to manufacture steel rods classifiable under sub-item 9(2)(i) of Item No. 25. The Department alleged that the respondents were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. and issued a show cause notice. The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, adjudicated the matter and allowed the benefit of the said Notification to the respondents (the notice before him).Upon careful consideration of the arguments, the Tribunal found that the used leafspring blades purchased by the respondents could not be classified under sub-item (11) of Item No. 25, as claimed by the respondents. The Tribunal also rejected the classification under sub-item (3) of Item No. 25 as waste and scrap. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was not available to the respondents due to the incorrect classification of inputs.Regarding the duty liability, the Tribunal noted that the final products were classifiable under sub-item 9(2) of Item No. 25, attracting a tariff rate of Rs 400 per MT. However, under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., a reduced effective rate of duty of Rs 330 per M.T. was provided for such goods. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the show cause notice and the lack of clarity on how the duty liability was determined under the said Notification.The Tribunal highlighted the failure to consider the benefit of Notification No. 209/83-C.E. or any other applicable Notification in the adjudication process. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for a fresh consideration in light of their observations. The order of the Collector of Central Excise was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed by way of remand for further assessment.