TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (5) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion No. 180/88. 2. The appellants are engaged in the business of fabrication and mounting of bodies on duty paid chassis received from various customers as per specifications and drawings given by customers. For purposes of fabrication of bodies appellants obtained various aluminium items classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. In the course of fabrication, aluminium scrap and waste arise which are used along with excise duty paid aluminium ingots for purposes of manufacturing parts and accessories of motor vehicle bodies through the process of casting. According to appellants these are used captively in relation to the fabrication of motor vehicle bodies. They claimed the benefit of exemption of duty under No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of bodies manufactured out of aluminium scrap arising in the course of fabrication of bodies out of duty paid aluminium materials through the process of casting. Ld. Counsel also submitted that there was an apparent contradiction in the Assistant Collector's order inasmuch as while goods listed as Sl. No. 1 of the classification list, viz. 'parts and accessories for use captively in the fabrication of bodies manufactured out of duty paid aluminium or steel' have been approved under sub-heading No. 8708.00 similar goods listed at Sl. No. 2 had been approved under sub-heading No. 7616.90. The appellants' claim is that these items were eligible for exemption from the whole of the duty of excise in terms of Notification No. 217/86. There ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal judgment in the case of I.E.L. v. C.C.E., Bombay [1988 (35) E.L.T. 142] in support. Further, even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the items are classifiable under 7616.90 as contended by Department, ld. Counsel has urged that the said items would still be eligible to the exemption of duty in terms of Notification No. 180/88, dated 13-5-1988. This position had been clarified by the appellants in their reply to SCN and therefore, they had not surrendered their claim for the said item to be classified under sub-heading 8708.00. Therefore the Assistant Collector's observation that the appellant had accepted the classification under 7616.90 was not correct. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assistant Collector had wrongl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 345/15/87-TRU, dated 28-7-1987 in which it had been stated that in exemption Notification 269/86 the expression "duty already paid" would also apply when duty paid is "Nil". 4. Shri Nunthuk, ld. JDR opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants had filed classification list claiming goods at Sl. No. 2 of Item 6 under Chapter sub-heading 8708 and claimed exemption for the goods under Notification No. 217/86 since they were captively consumed in the fabrication of bodies manufactured out of the aluminium materials through the process of casting. They had also claimed, for goods at Sl. No. 4 of Item 6 (aluminium waste and scrap), exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 180/88. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ast articles of aluminium are exempt from duty under Notification No. 180/88 only if the same are manufactured from goods falling under Chapter 76 on which duty of excise leviable has already been paid. It is not in dispute that the articles are manufactured through the process of casting out of aluminium scrap arising during fabrication of aluminium bodies. Lower authorities have held that since such scrap is exempted from duty under Notification No. 180/88 they are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid and therefore the cast articles of aluminium made therefrom chargeable to duty. Relying on the decision of the Patna High Court in Tata Yodogawa case (supra) and the Tribunal decision in I.E.L. case (supra) the appellants contend that....