Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Bombay Forgings Ltd on 24 May, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/37/04-Mum
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.BPS (279)46/2003 dtd. 16.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Member(Technical)
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
:
Appellant
VS
Bombay Forgings Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance
Shri S.S.Katiyar, SDR for Appellant
None for Respondents
CORAM:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member(Technical)
Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial)
Date of hearing: 24/05/11
Date of decision 24/05/11
ORDER NO.
Per : Rakesh Kumar
The respondent manufacture forgings and forged articles of alloy steel falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff ACT, 1985. They were claiming exemption under Notification No.223/88 which provides for concessional rate of duty in respect of forgings and forged articles of steel other than stainless steel. The department was of the view that the respondent are not eligible for this exemption, as forgings are of alloy steel not of steel. It is on this basis that the exemption under this Notification was denied by the Addl.Commissioner and duty demand of Rs. 2,40,435/- was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 173Q vide Order-in-Original dated 27.9.99 passed by the Additional Commissioner. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Order-in-Original was set aside vide order dated 16.9.2003. Against this order of the Commissioner(Appeals), the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue.
2. From the respondent there is a request for adjournment. However, after hearing the ld.SDR, Shri S.S.Katiyar, we are of the view that this matter can be decided and accordingly, the same was taken up for decision. Shri Katiyar pleaded that the forgings in question are of alloy steel and not of steel, while the exemption notification covers only the forgings of steel other than stainless steel, that chapter note 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) of chapter 72 define steel, stainless steel and other alloy steel respectively, from which it is clear that specifications for steel, stainless steel and other alloy steel are different, that forgings and forged articles of alloy steel cannot be said to be the forgings/forged articles of steel, that benefit of exemption under notification No.223/88-CE is, therefore, not available to the goods, in question, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld.SDR and have also gone through the impugned order-in-appeal. In the impugned order-in-appeal, the ld.Commissioner has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Mukundbhai D.Rathod vs CCE, Rajkot reported in 2003(153) ELT 320, wherein it has been held that the definition of steel under Chapter 72 of the CETA being wide enough to include the articles of various kinds of steel including the stainless steel and other alloy steel, benefit of exemption under Notification 223/88 would be available to the article of alloy steel. Though the notification during the period of dispute excluded the forgings/forged articles of stainless steel from its purview, the forgings/forged articles of other alloy steel would be covered by this exemption notification. It is not the Departments case that the forgings, in question, are of stainless steel. Therefore, the ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenues appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in court) AhokJindal Member(Judicial) Rakesh Kumar Member(Technical) pv 4