SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 1314

K.S.PARIPOORNAN, R.M.SAHAI
Tata Iron And Steel Company LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates:
A.H.Laskar, Amrita Mitra, P.PARMESHVARAN, SOLI J.SORABJI, SONU BHATNAGAR, Subba Rao

JUDGMENT

R.M. SAHAI, J.- The only dispute that arises for consideration in these appeals directed against the order of Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is whether scrap obtained by the appellant in course of manufacture of iron and steel and steel products was dutiable under Item 26 or Item 26-AA of the Tariff Schedule.

2. Since facts are not in dispute, and the duty is sought to be levied on scrap obtained by the appellant in course of manufacture of iron and steel products and supplied by it to M/s Tata Yodogawa Ltd. on payment of duty for conversion of scrap into ingots after re-melting which was actually re-melted and re-used by the appellant as ingot, it is appropriate to extract the two entries relating to steel ingots and iron or steel products:

"26.

Steel Ingots including Steel Melting Scrap.

Rs 100 per metric tonne.

26-AA.

Iron or steel products, the following namely:

Rs Three hundred and fifty per metric tonne

 

(i) Semi-finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, tin bars and hoe bars.

 

     (ii)-(v) * * *"

Item 26 levies duty on raw material. In commercial parlance steel ingots are used for producing steel products. Raw melting s








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top