TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by show cause notice dated 29-4-1995. 2. Heard Shri S. Kannan, learned DR for the Revenue and Shri AP Datar and Saravanan, learned Counsels for the respondents. 3. Briefly the issue concerns applicability of Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20-5-1988 which provides exemption to steel tubes which are produced out of steel plates/sheets not exceeding thickness of 5 mm. Show cause notice had alleged that the respondents had manufactured tubes and pipes out of HR coils of thickness exceeding 5 mm. This allegation was based on the statement given by the respondents' employees and their quality control department. This showed that the estimated thickness of the end product i.e. tubes was more than 5 mm. 4. As against this,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m any other agency, therefore, they had used the inputs in the manufacture of the pipes and tubes which conform to the thickness specified in the Notification. 6. The learned DR on the other hand takes us through the grounds of appeal and submits that no doubt the Notification stipulates that the input material should not exceed 5 mm thickness. But since the substantive benefit of the exemption is related to the output i.e. pipes and tubes, therefore, the two are connected and relatively inseparably. Secondly the respondents' own quality control inspection report of their slitting clearly shows that after slitting, the coils were measured at more than 5 mm thickness. Thirdly the quality control reports were authentic because they we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not purchased from any other source. (ii) Since their plant was not capable of handling coils beyond 5 mm thickness for the purpose of manufacturing tubes and pipes, therefore, there was no question of buying thicker coils. (iii) In fact when they were having the avenues of supplying tubes and pipes of thickness beyond 5 mm, they had therefore to resort to trading activity and proof of such trading activity is on record showing that they purchased ready-made pipes of higher thickness and supplied them where required. (c) The leanred Counsel further submitted that it is on record to the effect that SAIL did not manufacture steel sheets of intermediate thickness i.e. decimal point above 5 mm and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue they had submitted that the respondents are capable of modifying their plant and that the onus of proof in this respect was not discharged by them, is a mere conjecture and not worthy of consideration. If it is the case of the department that they had infact changed the capacity of their plant, then the burden of proof is on the Revenue to prove so and no whisper of evidence has been led to discharge this burden. As against this, they have submitted a certificate from the manufacturer that their plant is not capable of producing steel tubes and pipes beyond 5 mm thickness, as far back as 1984. In 1985 the Chartered Engineer's certificate was also submitted. This evidence should be read in the context of the certificate from SAIL. From 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds of appeal, have submitted that same thickness should be made applicable to the output also because the two are inseparable. We are unable to accept this contention, as it is well laid down law that there is no room for intentment to enlarge scope of any Notification. When the Notification specifically mentions only the thickness of the input, it would not be legally correct to link that thickness with the thickness of the output at all. Since the evidence relied upon by the Revenue pertains to the thickness of the output as contained in the quality control reports of the respondents as well as their invoice, therefore, on this evidence alone, the appeal does not seem to carry much strength. The learned Commissioner has, in great det....