TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (12) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s used in the making of steel ingots. 4. The respondent manufactures iron and steel products. The respondent manufactures ingots moulds and bottom stools from pig iron for use in steel melting shops. The respondent pays Central Excise duty on such ingot moulds and bottom stools in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 5. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section. Section 3 states that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured at the rates set forth in the First Schedule. 6. Prior to the Finance Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stituting the figures and words "29.35 per metric ton" for the words and figures "30 per ton". 10. By Notification No. 75/62, dated 24th April, 1962, the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by rule 8(1) of the Rules exempted steel ingots falling under Item 26 of the First Schedule to the Act and specified in Column 2 of the Table appended to the notification from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of duty specified in the corresponding entry in Column 2 of the said Table. In column 2 of the said notification the following description and duty appear : S. No. Descritption Duty 1. If produced out of scrap obtained from duty paid pig iron Rs. 30 per M.T. 2. If produced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....got moulds and bottom stools were used in conjunction with other non-duty paid pig iron in the manufacture of steel ingots. 15. The respondent challenged the orders in the High Court. The High Court quashed the orders of the Revenue Authorities. The High Court held that the Revenue Authorities fell into the error of interpreting Notification No. 30/60 by confining exemption to steel ingots in which "entirely, exclusively or only" duty paid pig iron is used. The High Court held that the words "entirely, exclusively or only" were not used in the notification. The notification exempted steel ingot in which duty-paid pig iron was used. The High Court also held that the notification would have to be interpreted in a manner that the stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and treated the case of the respondent to be a claim for exemption of duty-paid pig iron in the manufacture of steel ingots. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the statement of case of the appellant it is said that the respondent claimed refund of the duty paid on pig iron used in ingot moulds and bottom stools being the melted scrap in the manufacture of steel ingots. In the revision order of the Revenue, dated 7th July, 1967 in paragraphs 4 and 6 it is stated that the claim of the respondent was for duty-paid material used in the making of steel ingots. The Revenue Authorities in the said order did not accept the claim of the respondent for exemption on the ground that duty-paid pig iron was mixed with non-duty paid pig iron. 19. In par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they are broken. This becomes scrap and is melted and used in the manufacture of steel ingots. The respondent rightly contends that all the time it is duty-paid pig iron which is processed into ingot moulds and bottom stools and again broken into scrap and melted in the making of steel ingots. 23. The High Court rightly held that the contention of the Revenue fails on two broad grounds. First, there cannot be double taxation on the same article. Counsel for the Revenue gave the example of excise duty on motor car, in spite of the fact that there was duty on tyres and duty on metal sheets. The analogy is misplaced. In such cases the duty is on the end product of motor cars as a whole. The duty on tyres and the duty on metal sheets d....