TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iron & steel products like M.S. Rounds, Bars, Flats, Angles, etc. out of various re-rollable inputs, including ship breaking scrap; that the demand of Central Excise duty was confirmed against them by the Adjudicating Authority under Adjudication Order No. 30/88-C.E., dated 12-12-1988 besides imposing penalty on the ground that as ship breaking scrap had not suffered excise duty, the final products manufactured by them were liable to duty; that the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. E/49/94-B1 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for determination of duty in the light of the findings of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tigrania Metal & Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 76 (Tribunal), that in the remand proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said decision denied benefit only where the consignment was not accompanied with gate pass; that the remand was meant specifically to enable the Appellants to show gate passes where they claimed inputs being duty paid in character; that as they had produced copies of a few gate passes, benefit of the notification cannot be denied. 2.4 Regarding the third period, he said that gate passes were produced but the Adjudicating Authority did not accept the duty paid nature for 192 MT of scrap on ground on non-co-relation of gate passes with demand; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on the ground that most of the gate passes bore the words "exempted under Notification No. 386/86-C.E., dated 20-8-86"; that the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hip breaking units have paid is the additional duty of Customs equivalent to Central Excise duty on the ship under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, the inputs are clearly recognizable as non-duty paid for the purpose of this Notification (208/83). The condition laid down in the proviso to the aforesaid notification is not, therefore, fulfilled." He further mentioned that the appeal filed against the said decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. A166. He relied upon the decision in the cases of Suraj Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Ahemdabad - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 353 (T), and Varsha Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (93) ECR 644. In reply, the learned Advocate referred to Par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts should have furnished some other proof of payment of duty by the ship breakers on scrap. In absence of the same, benefit of Notification No. 208/83 cannot be extended to them in respect of their products for the first period. In respect of other two periods, the Appellants have claimed the scrap was received by them along with gate passes. The perusal of gate passes brought on record by the Appellants reveal that there is a clear and specific mention that "duty is fully exempted under Notification No. 386/86, dated 20-8-86" or duty paid is nil by deducting duty "as per Notification No. 386, dated 20-8-86, Balance Paid Nil." It is thus apparent that the scrap obtained by ship breaking was exempted from payment of duty. Once the inputs is....