TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cific Collectorates (namely, Ahmadabad, Rajkot and Baroda) only in respect of the cases which were before the Gujarat High Court and in respect of which, the Gujarat High Court has passed order dated 1st May, 1986, and when these instructions unambiguously referred only to these parties, whether these instructions can be applied in cases pending, or in respect of cases pending before other Collectorates? FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The respondents are license holders of Central Excise license and engaged in Ship Breaking activities. The activities of dismantling, breaking, cutting of the ships resulting in realisation of ferrous and non ferrous scrape of iron and steel, copper/brass, lead and aluminum amounted to manufacture under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid letter dated 6th April, 1989 had been issued with a view to implement the consent terms arrived and recorded in the orders of the Gujarat High Court. He further submits that though the Board had issued a letter dated 20th August, 1986 exempting ship scrap from duty, no similar Notification for exemption of duty, with respect to Bombay Central Excise Collectorate was issued for the period prior to 20th August, 1986 and as such the said letter dated 6th April, 1989 of the Board was to operate only in respect of those cases covered by the consent terms arrived at as per the orders of the Gujarat High Court and did not apply to any other cases or assessees, who were not party to the said consent terms. He, thus, submits that the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circular relating to the cases decided by the High Court of Gujarat, but, subsequently, the same was allowed to be followed by all the Collectorates. In this view of the matter, he submits that the benefit of circular was rightly given to the respondents by the CESTAT. He, thus, submits that the appeal is without any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed by answering the question of law framed in favour of the respondent/assessee. CONSIDERATION: 10. Having heard the rival contentions, it is not in dispute that the instructions were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise Office, Mumbai1 pursuant to the instructions received from the Board as regard dutiability of steel rerollable scrap which arose from ship breaking. I....