1997 (7) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herein. Ld. Advocate submits that these certificates point out that the said goods were sold by dealers or customers of the applicants/appellants mainly to re-rollers for using in their small mill and also to various traders for re-roll to re-rolling mills. He fairly submits that these certificates were not before the adjudicating authority because they have been procured subsequent to the adjudication order passed by the adjudicating authority. 2. As regards the Stay Petition, ld. Advocate seeks waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 51,53,297/- demanded as duty and Rs. 10 lakhs imposed as personal penalty. It is submitted that the applicants are manufacturers of blooms, billets etc. In the Furnace Division from the duty paid blooms, billets....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t there is a host of evidence now produced along with Miscellaneous Application that the aforesaid disputed products have been sent to re-rollers or to dealers who have further sold it to re-rollers. He, therefore, prays for giving a prima facie finding that their goods were covered under Notification 208/88. 3.1 On the question of limitation, ld. Advocate has submitted that prior to commencing of the said notification, they were working under Notification 208/83 and describing their final products i.e. "mis-rolls" and "end-cuttings" and other products namely, bars and rods out of duty paid blooms and blades. They had been declared out of licencing control because they were not required to pay any duty on the goods manufactured by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld. JDR, Shri S.N. Ghosh submits that "mis-rolls" and "end-cuttings" are fit for recovery of metal. There is no evidence to the contrary produced by the applicants/appellants by the adjudicating authority. In any case, it is the duty of the assessee to produce the evidences. He further submits that the two products i.e. "mis-rolls" and "end-cuttings" by their nomenclature and by the definition of expression bars and rods in the tariff would not be covered by the said expression `bars' and rods. He, further, submits that these disputed products would also be not covered by the definition of semi-finished products in the tariff and thus they would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification 202/88. On the question of admission of evidence ....