Appellate Tribunal denies steel mill's refund claim under Notification No. 206/63 for central excise duty.

RV. STEEL ROLLING MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

RV. STEEL ROLLING MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 221 (Tribunal) Issues:
Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 206/63 - Central Excise duty refund claims - Classification of steel ingots as semi-finished steel - Personal hearing granted by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) - Remand of the matter - Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 206/63 to Iron and Steel products made from steel ingots.

Detailed Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the eligibility of M/s. R.V. Steel Rolling Mills for the benefit of Notification No. 206/63 concerning central excise duty refund claims. The appellants had paid duty on Iron and Steel products and sought a refund under the notification, which was denied by the adjudicating authority and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant for the appellants, argued that the steel ingots used as raw material should be considered as semi-finished steel under the notification. He contended that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) did not grant a proper hearing and requested a remand of the matter to address their contentions adequately.

On the other hand, Shri P.K. Jain, SDR for the respondents, opposed the remand, stating that the law was settled regarding the interpretation of the notification. He argued that the steel ingots were covered under a different classification in the Central Excise Tariff and did not qualify as semi-finished steel under the notification.

The Tribunal carefully examined the matter and found that the Iron and Steel products manufactured by the appellants from steel ingots did not fall under the provisions of Notification No. 206/63. The notification specifically referred to semi-finished steel under a particular classification, which did not include cut ingots used by the appellants.

Regarding the issue of a personal hearing, it was noted that the Asstt. Collector had provided a proper hearing during adjudication, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had considered the appellants' pleas before making a decision.

Given the clarity of facts, settled legal provisions, and the age of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing previous Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of deciding old cases conclusively without unnecessary remands. The Tribunal concluded that the steel ingots, even if cut and broken before use, did not qualify as semi-finished steel under the relevant classification, thereby denying the benefit of the exemption notification to the appellants.

In light of the unambiguous facts and settled legal principles, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it, affirming the decision of the lower authorities regarding the ineligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 206/63 in relation to Iron and Steel products made from steel ingots.