1998 (11) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hole of duty under Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983. A show cause notice dated 31-8-1988 was issued for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 35,867.45 on M.S. Round bars removed during the year 1987 alleging that the finished goods were manufactured out of ship breaking scrap which was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and consequently the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 was not available to the appellants. The Additional Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant firm and Rs. 5,000/- on Shri Mohan Singh Birdi and Rs. 5,000/- on Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, both partners, holding that the finished goods manufactured from NIL duty paid or non duty paid ship break....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....They also relied upon the following decisions :- (i)  M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. v. Union of India - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 521 (Cal.). (ii)  M/s. I.E.L. Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 142 (Tribunal)= 1988 (16) ECR 177 (Tribunal). (iii)  CCE v. Usha Martin Industries - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) = 1997 (22) RLT 221 (S.C.). (iv)  Sunil Plastic Industries v. CCE - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal). (v)  Apee Jay Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (20) CXLT 306. 4. Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that in Usha Martin Industries case, the Supreme Court was interpreting the expression "on which the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid" used in the notification whereas in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act made from the specified inputs subject to the following conditions :- (i)  that the final products are made from inputs on which excise duty or the additional customs duty leviable has already been paid; (ii)  that no credit of the duty paid on the inputs has been taken under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 6. We observe that the Supreme Court in Usha Martin Industries case, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) = 1997 (22) RLT 221 (S.C.) was not disposed "to offer a narrow interpretation to the expression (i.e. on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid) as excluding all cases where nil duty was paid for the input materials." The Apex Cou....