Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kundan Steel Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 19 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(117)ELT680(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. These are 7 appeals filed by the two appellants arising out of common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad.
2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel submitted that the issue involved in all the appeals is the availability of Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 which provides exemption to finished product it manufactured out of the specified goods mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the said notification. He, further submitted that he is not pressing the charge of denial of the benefit of notification by Collector (Appeals) in respect of used rails, wheels, axles etc. following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 660 (Tribunal). He, however, submitted that in Vivek Re-rolling case, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of deemed Modvat credit to the appellant as their product have now been held to be chargeable to duty as benefit of Notification No. 202/88 was held no availability to them. He prayed that the same direction may be given to the Assistant Collector whom the matters have been remanded by the Collector (Appeals) for quantifying the demand after following the principles of natural justice.
3. Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that the question of availability of deemed Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it stood then, was not raised by the appellant before the Collector (Appeals) and, therefore, they cannot take the same plea now before the Tribunal.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the matter went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) as the Assistant Collector had revised the classification list without issuing the show cause notice. The learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, has also mentioned that prior to this the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 was allowed to them in respect of the very same inputs. We find substantial force in his submission and as benefit of notification has been denied, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills (supra), the ratio of that decision in toto should apply in their matters also. He has also mentioned that the Assistant Collector has so far not readjudicated the matter on remand by the Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, direct the Assistant Collector to consider the plea of the appellant for allowing deemed Modvat credit, if, otherwise, admissible to them. All the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.