TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1340/2016 No.386-389/2016 dated 27.05.2016 Rs.1,09,08,382/- Rs.89,463/- C/21341/2016 No.386-389/2016 dated 27.05.2016 Rs.66,59,705/- -- C/21388/2016 No.386-389/2016 dated 27.05.2016 Rs.1,26,09,400/- -- It would suffice to narrate the facts of appeal No.C/21339/2016 filed by M/s. Mukund Ltd. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants herein above filed Bills of Entry declaring the product as Coke Breeze, declaring its classification under CTH 2704 0090 and claiming exemption under Sl.No.125 of Notification No.12/2012- Cus dated 17.03.2012. The goods were provisionally assessed and duty was paid under protest by the appellants. The provisional assessment was finalised after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the adjudicating authority rejecting the claim of the exemption Notification No.12/2012 confirmed the differential duty in each of the aforesaid case and appropriated the amount paid by the respective appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Iron Ore. The particle size of Met Coke does not alter its description, characteristics, use and classification. The Met Coke above 12mm and Coke Breeze 12mm and blow are Metallurgical Coke and classified under CTH 2704 0090. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has not made any distinction between met Coke in lump form and Coke Breeze and both are classified under CTH 2704 0090 and their use in Metallurgy is not in dispute. Therefore, Coke Breze being Metallurgical Coke is eligible to the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. 4.3. Assailing the impugned order, learned advocate has summarised his argument:- The Appellants submit that in the present case the technical parameters like size, calorific value, etc., for the "Metallurgical Coke" are neither defined in Chapter Notes of Chapter 27 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 nor in the Explanatory Notes of Harmonized System of Nomenclature nor in the Exemption Notification No 12/2012 Cus dated 17.3.2012. If the imported goods satisfy that they are "Metallurgical Coke" the exemption is eligible and cannot be denied. It is submitted that whether the imported goods come within a particular Tariff Headin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence both products are Metallurgical Coke used in the processes of manufacture of iron and Steel, (iv) impugned orders heavily rely on CBEC Circular No 56/2003 Cus dated 27.6.2003 and conclude that Met Coke lumps and Met Coke Fines are different products and hence Coke Fines are not eligible for exemption under Notification No 12/2012 Cus dated 17.3.2012. (v) The impugned orders are contrary to settled law that the Circulars cannot form the basis for interpretation of Exemption Notifications. The Appellants rely on the following judgments: (a) Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd Vs CCE 2008 (229) ELT 641 (SC) (b) CC (Port) Vs Sanwar Agarwal 2020 (372) ELT 686 (Cal) (vi) It is also well settled that the Circulars contrary to law have no existence in law, (vii) The technical parameters like size, calorific value, etc., for the "Metallurgical Coke" are neither defined in Chapter Notes of Chapter 27 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 nor in the Explanatory Notes of Harmonized System of Nomenclature nor in the exemption Notification No 12/2012 Cus dated 17.3.2012. Therefore, Coke of size 12 MM and below, known as Coke Breeze, used in Metallurgical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Heading or Tariff Item Description of Goods Standard Rate Additional Duty Rate Condition No 125 270400 Metallurgical Coke Nil - - 8. The classification of the Coke Breeze and Metallurgical Coke is not in dispute but the admissibility of exemption notification to Coke Breeze has been denied by the Department on the ground that Metallurgical Coke and Coke Breeze are two different products, the exemption notification since mentions only Metallurgical Coke; therefore, Coke Breeze imported by the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of the said notification. We do not want to dwell much on the meaning and scope of manufacture of Coke Breeze and Metallurgical Coke as the meaning and application of the same has been considered at length by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- 37. As noted in para 26, the energy information administration data clearly reflects a huge chasm and wide variation between the average price of coke and coke breeze which besides technical parameters, clearly establishes the fact of the two commodities being clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndra Textile Processors 2008(231)ELT 3 (SC). Nonetheless, it may be apt for sake of records to state what the Hon'ble Courts have held on this aspect of the subject matter. Thus in the foremost, it is settled law that an exemption notification calls for a strict interpretation and no liberal constriction can be placed to extend the scope of the notification. Reliance for the proposition can be placed on- (i) Radiant Cables Pvt. Ltd., (2017 (348) ELT 558 T). For the premise if metallurgical coke is eligible for exemption, coke breeze would not automatically follow. (ii) BPL Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin-II (2015 (319) ELT-556 SC). (iii) Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, Bhilwara, Rajasthan Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, (1995 (77) ELT 474 SC). (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. (2010(260)ELT 3 SC). For the premise the onus is on the person seeking benefit to establish his eligibility. (v) Novopan India Ltd., Vs. CCE, and Customs (1994 (Supp(3) SCC606). (vi) Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. HH Dave, ACCE and Customs Surat & others (AIR 1970 SC 755). For the premise plain and c....