Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Brassco Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Brassco Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 13, 1995
~6 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/8716

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Brassco Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1996)(81)ELT576TriDel

Excerpt

.....3, dated 24-8-1968, he observed that wire bars are deemed to be 'bars' which are included in the definition of copper in any crude form given under tariff item no. 26a(1) and since the product is manufactured from a mixture of old scrap of copper and copper wire bars and as such it becomes eligible for exemption. hence this appeal by the department.2. arguing for the revenue, shri k.k. jha, ld. sdr while reiterating the grounds adopted by the department submitted that the copper wire bars out of which copper rods are manufactured are not in crude form under tariff item 26a(1) as there is a separate entry for copper wire bars under tariff item no. 26a(1a). he said that copper rods are not manufactured exclusively out of copper scrap or out of copper scrap in combination with copper in any crude form and accordingly notification no. 119/66 is not applicable. he also contended that the copper rods are manufactured out of combination of copper scrap with wire bars, zinc and tin which are not listed as raw materials in the aforesaid notification.3. shri m.a. rangaswamy, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that notification no. 119/86 specifically exempts copper in any crude form as can be seen from the clauses of notification and if the item is made of some portion of the copper with or without other components, there is no bar for denying the exemption and it is even as per the findings of the asstt. collector, the items are made of copper in addition to other items and since the item is made of copper, there is no justification for denying the benefits in terms of the notification. he contended that copper wire bars are also crude form of copper and besides the list of crude forms of copper given in the notification, there can be many more forms of crude copper and that copper wire bars is one of such crude forms falling under item iv of the list given in the notification. he also said that central board of excise and customs in their circular.....

Full Judgment

1. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether the respondents are entitled for exemption in respect of the products namely, "Copper and Brass round rods, hexagonals, squares and rectangulars not less than 10mm in thickness" falling under Tariff Item 26A(1A) in terms of Notification 119/66-C.E., dated 16-7-1956, amended. In the classification list 70/81 effective from 1-6-1981, the respondents clearly mentioned that the aforesaid products are manufactured out of old scrap, copper wire bars, zinc, tin etc. The Asstt. Collector has rejected the claim of the party on the ground that Notification No.119/66 exempts copper products specified in the Notification which are made from the materials or a combination thereof listed as Items (i) to (v) of the said notification and further held that they manufactured copper and brass rods out of the raw material namely old scraps, copper wire bars, zinc, tin etc. which does not find any place in the list of raw materials to the said notification nor it can be considered as copper in crude form. In appeal filed by the party, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the party relying upon the Circular issued by the Board as per letter No. 2/3/66-CX. 3, dated 24-8-1968, he observed that wire bars are deemed to be 'bars' which are included in the definition of copper in any crude form given under Tariff Item No. 26A(1) and since the product is manufactured from a mixture of old scrap of copper and copper wire bars and as such it becomes eligible for exemption. Hence this appeal by the department.

2. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR while reiterating the grounds adopted by the department submitted that the copper wire bars out of which copper rods are manufactured are not in crude form under Tariff Item 26A(1) as there is a separate entry for copper wire bars under Tariff Item No. 26A(1A). He said that copper rods are not manufactured exclusively out of copper scrap or out of copper scrap in combination with copper in any crude form and accordingly Notification No. 119/66 is not applicable. He also contended that the copper rods are manufactured out of combination of copper scrap with wire bars, zinc and tin which are not listed as raw materials in the aforesaid notification.

3. Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Notification No. 119/86 specifically exempts copper in any crude form as can be seen from the clauses of notification and if the item is made of some portion of the copper with or without other components, there is no bar for denying the exemption and it is even as per the findings of the Asstt. Collector, the items are made of copper in addition to other items and since the item is made of copper, there is no justification for denying the benefits in terms of the notification. He contended that copper wire bars are also crude form of copper and besides the list of crude forms of copper given in the notification, there can be many more forms of crude copper and that copper wire bars is one of such crude forms falling under Item IV of the list given in the Notification. He also said that Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Circular 2/3/66-CX. 3, dated 24-8-1968 have clarified that the word 'bar' occuring in Item 26A means ingot bars and/or wire bars (produced by casting process). He submitted that the appellants have purchased the raw materials through open market and the wire bars which form only a small portion of total raw materials and portion of copper was pre-dominent as can be seen from the description of product as given in the classification list.

4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the products in question are manufactured by the party out of the old scraps, copper wire bars etc. It is not even the case of the department that it was not made of copper but according to department, since it was made of old scrap of copper in addition to wire bar, wire bars are neither copper in crude form nor copper scrap. The Collector has analysed this point and observed that raw materials described at No.(v) of the notification is copper in any crude form which includes wire bars and even the Tariff description given under Item 26A(1) clearly clarifies that copper in any crude form includes ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots and pellets. We concur with this view that wire bars are to be deemed to be bar which are included in the definition of copper in any crude form given under Tariff Item 26A(1) and the party's product is manufactured from a mixture of old scrap of copper and copper wire bars. We do not find any justification in denying the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. We also take note of the circular issued by the Govt. of India as per No. 138/8/81-CX. 4, dated 24-2-1982 with reference to the scope of Notification No. 119/66 which reads as under : "It has now been decided in partial modification of the Trade Notice No. 233/81 referred to above that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 119/66, dated 16-7-1966 in the manufacture of copper and copper alloys would be admissible even if other metals such as zinc, lead, tin or nickel etc. have been added to it provided the copper content is predominant. It is further decided that the above instructions will apply mutatis mutandis in relation to the goods specified in Tariff Items 25, 26, 26A, 26AA, 26B, 27 and 27A even if in the manufacture of these goods other metals are also added as a technological necessity in combination with the base metals already specified in the above tariff items." 5. Since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), we uphold the impugned order and in the result, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed. Cross objections filed by the party are also disposed of accordingly in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial