TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Company not eligible for concessional duty on steel ingots, liable for differential duty. Appeal rejected.</h1> The Tribunal held that M/s. Gurkartar Steels (P) Ltd. was not eligible for the concessional rate of central excise duty under Notification No. 53/80-CE ... Steel billets, bars, flats etc. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 53/80-CE dated 13-5-80 for steel ingots manufactured from end cuttings of steel billets, bars, flats, etc.2. Interpretation of 'fresh un-used steel melting scrap' under the said notification.3. Applicability of differential duty under Notification No. 147/77-CE dated 18-6-77.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility of Benefit under Notification No. 53/80-CE:The primary issue was whether M/s. Gurkartar Steels (P) Ltd. was eligible for a concessional rate of central excise duty under Notification No. 53/80-CE for steel ingots manufactured from end cuttings of steel billets, bars, flats, etc. The Tribunal examined if these end cuttings could be classified as 'fresh un-used steel melting scrap' as per the notification.2. Interpretation of 'Fresh Un-used Steel Melting Scrap':The Tribunal analyzed the definition and scope of 'fresh un-used steel melting scrap.' It was noted that the concessional rate of duty was only applicable if the steel ingots were manufactured from materials specified in the notification, including fresh un-used steel melting scrap. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, which clarified that steel melting scrap is material that arises unavoidably during steel making, casting, and finishing operations. It includes items like pit scrap, ingots too short to roll, and rejected ingots. The Tribunal concluded that end cuttings, while being scrap, did not arise at the stage of steel melting and thus could not be considered steel melting scrap.3. Applicability of Differential Duty under Notification No. 147/77-CE:The Tribunal upheld the view of the adjudicating authority that M/s. Gurkartar was not eligible for the concessional rate under Notification No. 53/80-CE and was instead liable to pay the differential duty as per Notification No. 147/77-CE. The demand of Rs. 89,532.01 for the period 1-4-83 to 31-7-83 was confirmed.Supporting Judgments and References:The Tribunal referred to several judgments to support its decision:- The Supreme Court's decision in Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which discussed the nature of steel melting scrap vis-a-vis steel ingots and concluded that steel melting scrap arises at the stage when molten metal solidifies in the process of manufacturing steel ingots.- The Tribunal's decision in Ravindra Steel Ltd., Nagpur v. Collector of Central Excise, which explained that steel melting scrap arises during the manufacture of steel ingots and not in the manufacture of iron and steel products.- The decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, which described the process that brings steel melting scrap into existence.Conclusion:After careful consideration of the facts and relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by M/s. Gurkartar Steels (P) Ltd. and upheld the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, confirming the demand for differential duty. The appeal was thus rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
