TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal is from 18-6-77 to 31-10-81. During the said period, three Notifications being Notification Nos. 152/77-C.E., 159/79-C.E. and 54/80-C.E., granted exemption to steel ingots subject to the conditions enumerated therein. In all the three notifications, common clause was to the effect that the exemption would be available if the final product is manufactured from any one of the materials namely - (a) old iron and steel melting scrap; (b) a combination of all the materials referred to at (a) above with fresh unused melting scrap on which appropriate duty of excise has been paid. 2. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellants started with the list of inputs mentioned in the said notifications. However, during the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner vide his Order dated 30-6-82 dropped all the show cause notices by holding that when the initial inputs brought to the appellants' factory were covered by the list of specified inputs given in the said Notifications, the exemption cannot be denied. Against the said Order, a Review Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, which ultimately culminated into the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner holding that the use of the said Circulating Scrap contravened the conditions of the said Notifications thus disentitling the appellants from the benefit thereof. The said Order is before us. 4. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants challenged the above Order on merits as also on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the Commissioner who has failed to verify the same. He also submitted that the appellants have been discriminated vis-a-vis the other manufacturers and also referred to the Tribunal's decisions in support of the above arguments. 6. Shri Bagaria, learned Advocate also challenged the impugned Order on the point of limitation. Giving details in regard to issuance of the show cause notices, he submitted that the two show cause notices were issued on 23-4-1981 relating to the period from 18-6-1977 to 8-4-1979. In the said notices, there was no allegation as regards the suppression of facts or misstatement or contravention of any provisions of law with an intent to evade payment of duty. Further, four show cause notices dated 8-4-1981 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntiate the case-law relied upon by the learned Advocate on the ground that the same has been given in different situations. 9. As regards limitation, Shri Roy, learned JDR submitted that the same is not applicable. The process of manufacture along with Circulating Scrap was not disclosed to the Revenue. Filing of returns only show production of scrap, but not its use in the final product. 10. We have considered the submissions made from both sides. The short issue required to be decided is as to whether the appellants can be said to have fulfilled the conditions of Notification Nos. 152/77-C.E., 159/79-C.E. and 54/80-C.E. which are applicable only when the specified inputs are used in the manufacture of the final product. Admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied inputs. The portion of the specified inputs gets converted into scrap as it is not practically and technically possible to convert the entire inputs into final products. Such regenerated scrap is again used as an input. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants have manufactured the final products from the Circulating Scrap inasmuch as the said Circulating Scrap has also originated from the specified inputs. It is not the condition of the Notifications that the specified inputs must be directly converted into ingots. At the most, it can be said that the specified inputs have been used in the production of the final product via Circulating Scrap in which case, the benefit of the Notifications cannot be denied. In this....