Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shri Krishna Rolling Mills

Collector of Central Excise vs Shri Krishna Rolling Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 30, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9947

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/9947
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Aug 30, 1996
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Shri Krishna Rolling Mills

Legal References

Reported In: (1997)LC146Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. these revenue appeals are directed against order in appeal nos. 24 to 30/87(g) (d), dated 27-2-1987.2. arguing for the revenue, the ld. dr submits that collector (appeals) in the impugned order has erred in classifying the inputs as specified inputs under notification no. 208/83 and thereby has wrongly allowed exemption from payment of duty by notification no. 208/83 on finished goods, i. e. m. s. round bars cleared by the manufacturer. the inputs are plate-cuttings, angle cuttings and m. s. rod cuttings and these are classifiable as scrap and therefore, are not eligible to exemption under notification no. 208/83.4. we have heard ld. dr and perused the records of the case. the inputs obtained are m. s. rod cuttings, angle cuttings and plate cuttings. it is contended by the respondents that these are eligible materials and are classifiable under customs tariff item 125(9)(ii) and 25(ii). in terms of notification no. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 as amended finished goods specified therein under s. no. 2 of the notification are exempted from duty if among others inputs are classifiable under tariff item 25(9)(ii) and 25(ii). in the final order no. e/138-139 /96-b, dated 30-4-1996 in case of cce, guntur v. model steel (p) ltd., the tribunal held that the raw materials for the manufacture of m. s. rounds, squares, angles and channels were not scrap but were rollable materials and rejected the department's appeal. ld. dr concedes that input materials are rerollable. in view of this following the ratio of the aforesaid order, we reject the revenue appeals and uphold the impugned order.

Full Judgment

1. These revenue appeals are directed against order in Appeal Nos. 24 to 30/87(G) (D), dated 27-2-1987.

2. Arguing for the revenue, the ld. DR submits that Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has erred in classifying the inputs as specified inputs under Notification No. 208/83 and thereby has wrongly allowed exemption from payment of duty by Notification No. 208/83 on finished goods, i. e. M. S. Round Bars cleared by the manufacturer. The inputs are plate-cuttings, angle cuttings and M. S. Rod cuttings and these are classifiable as scrap and therefore, are not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 208/83.

4. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The inputs obtained are M. S. Rod cuttings, angle cuttings and plate cuttings. It is contended by the respondents that these are eligible materials and are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 125(9)(ii) and 25(ii). In terms of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 as amended finished goods specified therein under S. No. 2 of the Notification are exempted from duty if among others inputs are classifiable under Tariff Item 25(9)(ii) and 25(ii). In the Final Order No. E/138-139 /96-B, dated 30-4-1996 in case of CCE, Guntur v. Model Steel (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that the raw materials for the manufacture of M. S. rounds, squares, angles and channels were not scrap but were rollable materials and rejected the department's appeal. Ld. DR concedes that input materials are rerollable. In view of this following the ratio of the aforesaid order, we reject the revenue appeals and uphold the impugned order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Shri Krishna Rolling Mills Same Subject Service Tax