P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. This bunch of appeals raises common substantive issues. Therefore, they are being dealt with in a common order.

2. Briefly stated common undisputed facts are that the appellant mills are manufacturers of iron and steel products having rolling mills. They are getting re-rollable scrap from the market and manufacturing rounds, bars, flats and rods. Invoices of purchase indicate that the scrap used by them is ship breaking scrap and/or re-rollable scrap. In some of these matters purchase invoices merely mentioned re-rollable scrap.

2.1 A common question that arises in all these matters is whether the rolling mills are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 as amended from time to time.

2.2 In order to understand the controversy it is appropriate to reproduce relevant portions of Notification 208/83, as it stood from time to time :-

2.3 With effect from 1-3-1986 new Central Excise Tariff under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into existence having six digit Tariff Headings. Consequent to change in Tariff, Table to the Notification No. 208/83 also underwent a change which is reproduced as below :-

******

2.4 Simultaneously, a new Heading 72.15 in t