LexBHUPENDRA STEEL (P) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1038 ' .( A BHUPENDRA STEEL (P) LTD. + v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE B (Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2003) MAY 16, 2008 • ·-.f. (ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) c Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Sub-headings 7226. 20 and 7228.30/Central Excise Q Act, 1944: Tariff Item 25(8) and Exemption Notifications Nos. 208183-CE dated August 1, 1983, 90188-CE dated March 1, 1988 and 202188-CE dated May 20, 1988 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs~ D Exemption Notifications - Applicability of, to the product + ' I · 'steel bars and rods' and 'steel ingots' manufactured by asses- ,J see - Held: In order to claim benefit of tile exemptions Notifi- cations, assessee has to satisfy the condition that the product falling under heading 72. 08 and the products are made from E goods of descriptions specified in the Notification - Claim of the assessee that inputs used by it are flat rolled products, falling under heading 72.08of1985 Act runs contrary to what I has been held by this Court earlier in assessee's own case • ' that inputs to qualify for roughly shaped by rolling/iron/steel - 'r ~ Inputs used by assessee therefore cannot be termed as pieces I F roughly shaped but could be termed as waste and scrap - Hence, Exemption Notification not applicable. The question wh.ich arose for determination before this Court in this appeal was as to whether the steel bars G and rods falling under sub-heading 7228.30 and steel in- ' ' gots falling under sub-heading 7226.20 of the Central + .. Excise and Tariff Act, 1985, the final products manufac- tured by the assessee are eligible for exemption from pay- ment of excise duty in terms of Notification No.208/83-CE H 1038 ' ' BHUPENDRA STEEL P. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1039 OF CENTRAL EXCISE dated August 1, 1983 as amended by Notification Nos.90/ A 88-CE dated March 1, 1988 and Notification No.202/88-CE dated May 20, 1988. Appellant-assessee contended that insofar as period from October, 1987 to March, 1988 is concerned, the point in issue stands concluded against the assessee in his 8 own case in an earlier judgment of this Court in the case Bhupendera Steels (P) Ltd vs. CCE; that insofar as the sub- sequent periods are concerned, they are governed by No- tification Nos. 90/88 dated 01.03.1988 and 202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The benefit of the notifications is available to an assessee who used specified inputs. In the present -... case, the claim made by the assessee has been that the D ~ inputs used were "pieces roughly shaped". These are described as such in all the three exemption notifications where the reference is specifically to "pieces roughly shaped". [Para 11] [1043-8,C] 1.2 A bare reading of the Notifications dated March E . 1, 1988 and May 20, 1988 shows that assessee has to sat- isfy two conditions for availing the exemption under both the notifications (i) that the products are made from any goods of description specified in the corresponding en- try in column 2 and (ii) they should fall within Chapter 72 F of the Tariff Act. [Para 17] (1046-0,E] 1.3 The submission for the assessee before this Court, that the input would fall under heading 72.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, namely, flat rolled products of G item etc., runs contrary to what has been held by this Court earlier in the assessee's own case. As the Notifica- tions themselves provided, the inputs had to be pieces roughly shaped by rolling of iron or steel. Obviously, enough, they cannot be flat rolled "products" or iron. As H 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. . .- ~ A held by this Court, pieces of bars, rods, flat etc., which + .... are cut off from the main item, cannot qualify as pieces which are roughly shaped by rolling or forging. [Para 18] [1046-E,F,G] B Bhupendera Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2002) 7 SCC 528 - relied on. ~ 1.4 The assessee had purchased trimmings and ·--1- forgings, old dismantled machines, old ~roken engineer- ing goods, punched steel metal containers and other bro- c ken articles. These certainly cannot be treated as "pieces roughly shaped". [Para 21] [1047-C,D] 1.5 As far as the period after the introduction of present definition in Note 6 is concerned, the inputs are squarely cov,ered by the definition of waste and scrap and D . they do not find any mention in Notification No. 202/88 or --t 90/88. [Para 22) [1047-0
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.