TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption from duty for two Items, viz. (i) M.S. Bones and (ii) Alloy Steel Bones. These products are known as "runners" and "risers" in the market. The said classification list was suo motu modified by the Department deleting the Items without giving any opportunity to the Appellants. The Assistant Collector approved the Classification List on 11-6-1979, though the classification list was filed on 23-8-1978. In the meantime the Appellants had cleared M.S. Bones and Alloy Steel Bones without payment of duty and filed necessary R.T. 12 Returns from time to time indicating the clearances of these products. On 3-9-1979 a show cause notice was issued asking the appellants to show cause why duty of Rs. 2,67,821.97 should not be recovered on the ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs would also be exempted under the same definition. The Trade Notice issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate specified that steel melting scrap which was not intended to be sold as ingots and including those obtained after removal of slag and refractory should be accounted for in their raw material account. He, therefore, urged that runners and risers, which were fit for hot treatment and cleared from the factory for further rolling were nothing but ingots. The Hon'ble Finance Minister at the time of passing the Budget for the year 1983-84 has stated : "The principles of classification hitherto adopted through executive instructions are being incorporated in the Tariff Entry itself". The learned Counsel urged that if runners and risers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Ltd.]. 7. On time bar, the SDR stated that the documents filed did not relate to the product concerned in the Appeal. 8. Shri P.S. Bedi, in his reply stated that the product concerned in this case was different from the one decided in the Ravindra Steel Ltd. Further, the Appellants said that the ingots were actually used in re-rolling mills which would imply that they were fit for re-rolling. 9. The points for consideration in this Appeal are : (1) whether the runners and risers arising in the manufacture of steel ingots, would be steel ingots or steel making scrap and would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 237/75; (2) whether the demand for the extended period of limitation could be justified. 10. On the quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, in this case. In the case of Ravindra Steels the Tribunal considered merits of this contention. In Paragraph 8 the Tribunal had observed as follows :- "Though the tariff Entry relating to Item No. 26 of Central Excise Tariff includes 'steel melting scrap' along with steel ingots, there appears to be no warrant to read such an extended meaning into the expression 'steel ingots' employed in the said Notification". In the case of Modern Steels also, the Tribunal rejected the plea for application of Notification 237/75. 12. We are not impressed with the contention of the Appellants that the facts of the present case are different. The issue has already been considered in the judgments of the Tribunal cited supra and we do not see an....