2008 (1) TMI 788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 9-7-1997 in the earlier round of litigation) was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a)     The appellant manufactured steel angles falling under erstwhile T.I. 25(11) and later under Chapter Heading 72.10 (from 1-3-1986) out of waste and scrap obtained ship breaking. (b)     The Original Authority in his order, in de novo adjudication, came to the conclusion that ship breaking materials were not waste and scrap and held that the final products are eligible for exemption under the Notification 208/2003, dated 1-3-2003 up to 28-2-1986 and that from 1-3-1986 the Unit is entitled to proforma credit/Modvat credit under Rule 56A/57A. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g personal hearing. 4.2 He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Zakaria Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Vadodara [2005 (192) E.L.T. 942 (Tri.-Mum.)]. 5. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below :- "According to above CEGAT's direction the respondents has to produce necessary evidence to establish that the raw material used are actually pieces of iron bars, iron rods, steel rods, MS angles de-shaped/blocks lumps and similar other forms of iron and steel covered by Ch. H. No. 7206, 7207, 7209 & 7210. However, on perusal of ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cting the permissible credit if any, eligible to respondent." 7.1 The appellant relies on the decision in the case of M/s. Zakaria Steel Rolling Mills - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 942 (Tribunal). The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced below :- "4. We have heard both sides and carefully perused the Tribunal's Order dated 5-5-98. The period in dispute ranges from 1-8-83 to 31-8-86. We agree with the assessee that the demand for the period prior to 1-3-86 i.e. for the period from 1-8-83 to 28-2-86 has been set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, no demand covering this period, survives. Therefore, the confirmation of demand for this period by the Commissioner in the present impugned order cannot be sustained and i....