1997 (1) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....b-item (ia) of Item 26AA of the old Central Excise Tariff and had cleared them at appropriate rate of central excise duty. Subsequently, they filed refund claims on the ground that their final products i.e. Iron & Steel products falling under sub-item (ia) of Item 26AA were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 206/63 aforesaid. They were producing the Iron and Steel products from the duty paid steel ingots. Their claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority the Asstt. Collector and his order was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his consolidated order dated 30-6-1988. 2. Appearing for the appellants, Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant submitted that their raw material was steel ingots and before actua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erials or a combination thereof :- (i) Fresh un-used re-rollable scrap on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise had already been paid. (ii) Semi-finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, tin bars and hoe bars on which the appropriate amount of duty had already been paid. (iii) Old and used re-rollable scrap. 5. The ld. Consultant had submitted that they were cutting and breaking the steel ingots before they were used in the manufacture of their final products - Iron and Steel classifiable under sub-item (ia) of Item 26AA. We find that the semi-finished steel as referred to in the Notification is that semi-finished steel, which was classifiable under sub-item 1 of Item 26AA, which c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ility. In the case of Dimple Overseas v. CC, Kandla - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 10 (S.C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that after giving a clear finding on a question relating to merits of the case the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Collector for de novo adjudication; such a remand was exercised in futility. When the Tribunal considers the evidence sufficient to record a finding on merits, appropriate course was to decide the entire appeal instead of remanding the matter to the Collector (Head Notes). In the case of Indu Ben Ashok Rao Nalvade v. Dhiraj Lal Surati - 1995 (61) ECR 553 (S.C.), the Supreme Court had held that the first Appellate Authority should re-appreciate evidence and come to the grips of the issue and not follow a ca....