TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had held as flats, classifiable under Item No. 25(9)(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and the appellants have contended that the goods were bars classifiable under Item No. 25(9)(2) of the said Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, had held in his order that the goods in question were flats. He had confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 89,912.50. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s. Utkal Steel Ltd. 3. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant, appearing for the appellants stated that the goods manufactured by them were bars and that they have no arrangement for rolling the edges of controlled contour. They were producing bars from re-rollable material during the period 4-6-1985 to 26-10-1985....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and that the plea that the goods were bars and not flats is being taken for the first time before the Tribunal and a new case is being made out by the learned Consultant. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. During the relevant time sub-item No. (9) of Item No. 25 of the Central Excise Tariff read as under : "(9) Bars (including flats) and rods (including wire rods) of iron or steel, rolled, forged, extruded, formed, finished whether in straight lengths or in coils, hollow mining drill steel (i) flats (ii) others" Under Explanation No. (xx) bars (including flats) and rods (including wire rods) had been defined as products of solid Section which do not conform to the entirety of any of the definitions at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conditional and is subject to the condition that the final products specified in the table annexed to that notification are made from the duty paid inputs. Although, it was explained that all stocks of inputs in the market except such stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid shall be deemed to be inputs on which the duty has already been paid, no exemption was available if the inputs were exempted or were clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid. The learned Consultant had submitted that during the relevant period, there was no requirement of taking any approval from the Department for availing exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., aforesaid. As we find that the exemption was conditional, relevant information ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stock of M.S. rounds and M.S. flats had been given. There is no reference to the bars. 10. The appellants have contended that the burden is on the Department to prove that the goods in question were flats and not bars. We find that before the surprise visit of the Central Excise Officers on 21-11-1985 to the factory premises of the appellants, no declaration had been filed or no information had been furnished that the goods produced by them were bars. Everywhere they have mentioned it as flats. We consider that in these circumstances, the burden of proof is on the appellants to show that although the goods were described by them as flats, actually they were not flats as per definition in the tariff. We find that the appellants have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d declared that their goods were bars. Without any licence, without any declaration and approval, they availed of the exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., which we find gives only exemption subject to certain conditions. It was not for the assessees themselves to determine, whether they were covered by those conditions. Thus, when the assessees themselves were treating their goods as flats, when their customers were purchasing them as flats, we consider that the burden of proof was on the assessee to establish that the goods were not flats. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that they have failed to discharge this burden. 13. The learned Consultant had also made a request that the matter may be remanded to....