2003 (9) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s rejected the application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, hereinafter referred to as Act. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of Iron Bars. During the relevant period, the petitioner had cleared 559.535 M.T. of Iron bars. The petitioner claimed exemption under the Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 2-5-1988 as amended time to time on the ground that in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayment particulars etc. but party has not produced any records to show that they have used any other duly paid materials along with railway material in the manufacture of final product. Railway materials have been treated as non-duty paid material being waste and scrap and accordingly disallowed the claim of exemption. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner, Central Excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial from Railways and they are not recognizable as non-duty paid material. He submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Laxmi Rolling Mills & others v. CEGAT, New Delhi and Others reported in [2002 (142) E.L.T. 327 (All.) = 2002 (48) RLT 1 (Alld.)] held that the burden of onus was on the department to prove that the goods have not suffered duty or that the same are recog....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....)] Vishal Industries v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, this Court vide order dated 9-3-2000 allowed the application under Section 35F. 5. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it would be appropriate that the appeal of the petitioner may be heard expeditiously without asking for any pre-deposits. Issue involve in appeal is arguable ....