TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of MS ingots, Alloy Steel ingots, fish plates, two way keys and rail clips. On the basis of an intelligence to the effect that they were manufacturing low Carbon Ferro Chrome ingots by melting high Carbon Ferro Chrome in electric furnace alongwith mild steel scrap and blowing the metal in AOD Converter with Oxygen to decarbonize the same, the Central Excise Officer visited their factory premises on 15-1-1991; that the officers, besides observing excess and shortage in stock of different products, drew samples from two different lots of M.S. Ingots lying in stock; that the Chemical Examiner reported that the samples are alloy of Iron, Chromium and Carbon and the content by weight was as under :- Serial No. Percentage of Chrom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amples; that their request for retest was rejected; that the Commissioner had mentioned in the impugned Order that the test result was not vital for arriving at any conclusion, that after having rejected the test result, there was no basis for the finding that the ingots had at least 10% of Chromium; that the entire dispute related to the quantity of Chromium and carbon in the ingots which could be settled only by the testing of the samples; that the impugned Order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Commissioner had relied upon the exercise books for his findings that the goods were S.S. ingots; that the chromium content indicated in the exercise books related....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l ingots; that further his cross examination was denied and therefore, no reliance could be placed on his statement. He also mentioned that the ferro chromium was not accounted for in RG 23 A as these were received without any duty paying documents. He finally submitted that having rejected the charge in the notice that the goods are ferro alloys falling under Heading 72.02 of C.E.T.A., the Commissioner has held the goods to be stainless steel ingots classifiable under Heading 72.18 which is beyond the notice and is, therefore, unsustainable. 5. Countering the arguments, Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R. reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and especially referred to the entries in the exercise book seized from the factor....