M/S. BHUPINDRA STEELS (P) LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 17-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

} 
MIS. BHUPINDRA STEELS (P) LTD. 
A 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 
(SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.) 
B 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-Section 3 I Central Excise Rules, 
1944-Rules 8(/)-Tariff Items-Sub-item 8-Levy of duty-Notification 
providing exemption of duty on items manufactured by using inputs falling C 
under sub-item 8-Manufacturer using "ends of Flats "-Exemption claimed-
Held, exemption not permissible since "ends of Flats" do not fall under sub-
item 8 as it is "waste and scrap''. 
Practice and Procedure: Plea raised for the first time before Supreme 
Court-Held. not permissible. 
Appellant-assessee manufacturer of ingots using the inputs "ends of 
M.S. Flats" sought exemption from excise duty under a Notification stating 
that the inputs used by it fell under sub-item 8. It was rejected by the 
Central Excise authorities. Appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed 
D 
by the Collector (Appeals). However, Tribunal held that appellants were E 
not entitled to exemption under the Notification as the inputs used cannot 
fall under sub item 8 as that item only deals with products which are given 
rough shape by the process of rolling and forging and which are given 
final shape by further processing and it does not cover either "waste of 
scrap" or "Flats"; that the "ends of Flats" remain "Flats" even after 
cutting and/or they would remain "waste and scrap" falling u/s 3 of the F 
Act. In appeal to this Court appellant contended that "ends of Flats" 
cannot be considered as "Flats" as "Flat" has to be a finished product, 
while "ends of Flats" are never finished; and that "ends of Flats" could 
not be "waste and scrap" as the same could be used only for recovery of 
metal or in the manufacture of chemicals; that though they were using G 
the "ends of Fl~ts" for. rec~very of metal, however it was being used by 
~thers for ma~mg various items like knives, forks etc; and that even if 
ends of Flats do not fall under sub-Item 8, they wo~ld fall under sub-
item 11 which is also Included in the Notification. 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent contended that "ends or Flats" are sold off as "waste 
B 
and scrap" by flat manufacturers; and that the appellants had purchased 
them from the scrap dealers. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Sub-item 8 would not cover pieces of bars, rods, flats etc. 
which are cut off from the main item. The "ends of Flats" cannot be pieces, 
which are roughly shaped by rolling or forging. Sub-item 8 deals with 
pieces of iron and steel which are given a rough shape by the process of 
rolling or forging. The fact that "ends of Flats" are sold off as "waste or 
C scrap" by "Flat" manufacturers and that the appellants had purchased 
the same from scrap dealers also indicates that "ends of Flats" do not fall 
under Sub-item 8. As the inputs do not fall under Sub-item 8, the appellant 
would not be entitled to exemption under the Notification. (417-D-Ff 
2. Appellant cannot be permitted to take a plea that if"ends of Flats" 
D do not fall under sub-item 8, they would fall under sub-item 11 which is 
also included in the Notification. Such a case is being made out for the 
first time before this Court. The appellants have not claimed exemption 
under the Notification on that basis. (417-F, Gf 
E 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2305 of 
1994. 
F 
'From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.1993 of the Central Excise 
Cust6ms and Gold (Contro) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in E/A. No. 1895 
of 1986-BI in 0. No. E/12119381. 
WITH 
·(Civil Appeal No .. 4843 of 1994 . 
. A.K. Jain, Rajesh Jain, Vineet Bhata and Ms. Arnita Gupta, for the 
G Appc;llants. 
~ S. Ganesh, Dileep Tandon and B. Krishna Prasad, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
VARIAVA, J. This appeal is against the Order dated 26th May, 1993 
.
' ..
BHUPINDRA STEELS v. C.C.E. [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 
415 
passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. 
A 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
The Appellants are manufacturers of ingots. Ingots are manufactured 
out of, among others, ends of M.S. Flats. The Appellants claimed exemption 
under Notification No. 208/83 dated Ist August, 1983. The relevant portion B 
of the said Notification reads as follows: 
"(4) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub~rule (I) of Rule 8 of 
the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.