Skip to content


Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cen. Ex. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided On

Reported in

(1998)(99)ELT116TriDel

Appellant

Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Cen. Ex.

Excerpt:


.....5mm would not apply only to flats since there is word 'or' after hoops.this condition would however, not have applied if there had been 'and' between hoops and flats. in fact, this was made explicit in notification 202/88, dated 25-8-1988 which clearly relates conditions relating to the items to each of the inputs specified in sl. no. 3 of schedule appended to notification at para 3 of the appeal papers. this makes it clear that legislative intention throughout was that the inputs for final products must not exceed 5 mm thickness.4. in view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the collector (appeals) order. at this stage, the learned advocate submitted that in their classification list, they had not declared pipes made from plates of thickness above 5 mm but the declaration was for 5 mm and above which would clearly indicate that some pipes were made from plates of just 5 mm thickness and exemption in such cases would be available. the notification denies exemption only in case thickness of plates exceeds 5 mm. exemption is available if thickness does not exceed 5 mm. since concession can be denied only in such cases where thickness exceeds 5 mm.

Judgment:


1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 1-9-1989.

The issue for consideration is admissibility or otherwise of concession on tubes and pipes made out plates of thickness 5mm and above under Notification 208/83, dated 1-8-1983. It was held by the Collector (Appeals) that since the plates from which these pipes and tubes were made had a thickness exceeding 5 mm, the appellants were not eligible to concession under Notifications 208/83 and 90/88.

2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate draws our attention to Notification No. 90/88 at page 28 of appeal papers and submits condition relating to thickness of inputs applied only to flats.

3. We have heard both the sides. The relevant Sl. No. 3 of Notification 208/83, Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 and Notification No.90/88, dated 1-3-1988 are set out below :_______________________________________________________________________________Sl. No. Description of inputs Description of final products_______________________________________________________________________________3.

Plates, sheets, strips, skelp, hoop or Tubes and pipes and blanks flats not exceeding 5 mm in therefor of steel other than thickness seamless tubes and pipes of steel.3.

Skelp, hoops, sheets of thickness not Tubes and pipes and blanks exceeding 5mm, strips of thickness not therefor of steel other than exceeding 5mm and flats of thickness not seamless tubes and pipes of exceeding 5mm steel.3.

Plates, sheets, strips, skelp, hoops, or Tubes and pipes and blocks flats, not exceeding 5mm in thickness therefor of steel other than seamless tubes and pipes of It would be clear that condition relating to thickness not exceeding 5mm would not apply only to flats since there is word 'or' after hoops.

This condition would however, not have applied if there had been 'and' between hoops and flats. In fact, this was made explicit in Notification 202/88, dated 25-8-1988 which clearly relates conditions relating to the items to each of the inputs specified in Sl. No. 3 of Schedule appended to notification at Para 3 of the appeal papers. This makes it clear that legislative intention throughout was that the inputs for final products must not exceed 5 mm thickness.

4. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the Collector (Appeals) order. At this stage, the learned Advocate submitted that in their classification list, they had not declared pipes made from plates of thickness above 5 mm but the declaration was for 5 mm and above which would clearly indicate that some pipes were made from plates of just 5 mm thickness and exemption in such cases would be available. The notification denies exemption only in case thickness of plates exceeds 5 mm. Exemption is available if thickness does not exceed 5 mm. Since concession can be denied only in such cases where thickness exceeds 5 mm.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //