1997 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in copper waste classification case, allowing exemption under specific notifications.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, M/s. Devi Dayal Rolling Mills, in the excise duty case concerning the classification of copper waste, ... Copper wire rods - Exemption Issues:1. Classification of copper waste and scrap, and copper wire rods for excise duty.2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 174/84 and Notification No. 172/84.Analysis:1. The appeal involved the classification of products by M/s. Devi Dayal Rolling Mills for excise duty on copper waste, scrap, and copper wire rods. The appellants classified their products differently under two classification lists, claiming exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 174/84 and Notification No. 172/84. The issue was whether the inputs and outputs fell under the same tariff heading, thereby exempting them from duty.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the appellants' claims, stating that proof of duty payment on inputs was required for exemption under Notification No. 174/84. Additionally, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection of exemptions under both Notification Nos. 174/84 and 172/84. The main contention was the interpretation of the conditions under the notifications and whether the duty had been appropriately paid on the inputs.3. The appellants argued that since the inputs were casted copper wire bars with nil duty under Notification No. 174/84, the copper wire rods manufactured from them should also be exempt. They relied on previous decisions to support their interpretation of 'appropriate payment of duty.' The Department, however, insisted on the production of specific documents for exemption under Notification No. 172/84.4. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant notifications and found that the copper wire rods were eligible for nil duty under Notification No. 174/84 as both inputs and outputs fell under the same subitem. They accepted the appellants' argument that goods cleared at nil duty should be considered as goods on which duty had been paid. Regarding waste and scrap of copper under Notification No. 172/84, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the exemption did not require prior duty payment on inputs.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and overturning the previous orders. They found merit in the appellants' submissions and concluded that the conditions for exemption under both notifications were met. The impugned order was set aside, granting relief to M/s. Devi Dayal Rolling Mills in the excise duty matter.