Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. on 15 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(183)ELT283(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur.
2. Respondents made import of scrap and declared in the Bills of Entry as Heavy Melting Scrap and claimed the classification under Heading 7204.49 of the Customs Tariff and also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/02 as applicable to melting scrap of iron or steel.
3. The declaration given by the respondent is not accepted by the Revenue and the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground of misdeclaration. The respondent filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no misdeclaration on the part of the respondent and allowed the appeal.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that a part of the scraps contains 3 to 10 length of "Old and used rails" and 3 to 10 length of rail sleepers. The case of the Revenue is that it is not melting scrap but re-rollable scrap, therefore, not covered under Notification No. 21/02-Cus.
5. The contention of the respondents is that they are the actual users and they are having a furnace and this scrap is imported for melting purposes only. Respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of G.H. Shaikh v. C.C., Pune [2003 (151) E.L.T. 190] whereby the Tribunal held that the melting scrap remains melting scrap even if only a small part of the consignment being found to be pipes, angles etc.
6. We find that Revenue is not disputing that the scrap is consisting of old and used rails sleeper. The respondent being the actual user, imported the same for melting purposes. Further, we find that Tribunal in the case of G.H. Shaikh v. C.C., Pune (supra) held that where scrap consisting of some pipes, angles etc., still remains 'Heavy Melting Scrap'. The Tribunal held that as sale and purpose of the entire consignment was as melting scrap and as only a small portion is of doubtful nature in such case the allegation of misdeclaring of the goods is not well founded. It was further held that if the customs are of the opinion that some of the goods are of dimensions beyond the normal scrap items, giving room for those items being sold as finished products like pipes etc., this could be settled by mutilating the doubtful pieces as requested by the importer. In the present case, the respondent made a request for mutilation and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same.
7. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.