S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.

2. The learned Jt. C.D.R. stated that the main issue involved in this matter is whether Runners and Risers arising during the course of manufacture of steel ingots were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 237/75.

3. The learned Collector (Appeals) has held that Runners and Risers are steel ingots or steel melting scrap depending upon what they are fit for and that the relevant notifications are applicable not only to steel ingots but also to steel melting scrap.

4. It was his submission that the order of the learned Collector (Appeals) was contrary to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ravindra Steels. The learned Collector (Appeals) has himself said so in so many words and not followed the ratio of that order on the ground that all the points were not pressed before or brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

5. The learned Collector (Appeals) has inter alia referred to General Clauses Act and cited some examples.

6. It was their contention that the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in his finding on facts as well as the finding on Law.

7. The matter is already covered by a number of decisions on the point including the one reported in Collector of C. E. v. Modem Steel Ltd. -MANU/CE/0116/1986 : 1986 (26) E.L.T. 165 (Tribunal) : 1987 (29) E.L.T. 1030. The learned C.D.R. also drew attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rustamji Pestonji reported in ILR 1948 Bombay 838 in support of his contention that Notification 237/75 granted exemption to steel ingots only and the same cannot be so construed as to imply a reference to steel melting scrap which was a different product known in the trade and commerce distinctly as Runners and Risers and not as ingots.

8. The learned Jt. C.D.R. also contended that since full facts had not been declared and suppression was involved, therefore, proviso to Section 11A was invokable. In view of this position it was his prayer that the order of the Collector (Appeals) may be set aside.

9. The learned Counsel stated that he would like to draw attention to the description of the Tariff Item 26 which is "Steel ingot including steel melting scrap". While he agrees that Runners and Risers could be considered as melting scrap, it was his contention that they had declared the full particulars of the goods in their classification list a photocopy of which has been produced by them. It was their submission that this classification list had been duly approved by the Assistant Collector concerned. Thus there was no mis-statement or suppression of facts and the fact of production of Runners and Risers was in the knowledge of the departmental authorities from the beginning. Hence the department should not have invoked the extended period of time.

10. It was also his submission that according to Board's clarification issued in January, 1979 the notification should be read in the context of tariff description and not in isolation and, therefore, the Runners and Risers were covered by the exemption notification. It was also their submission that as a matter of fact no manufacturing process was involved and Runners and Risers merely arise during the course of production of ingots and, therefore, were not dutiable. In this connection they would rely upon the order of the West Regional Bench reported in Kolhapur Steel Ltd. v. Collector-1 983 (14) E.L.T. 1947. He would also like to refer to the order of the Government of India reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 486.

11. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We note that the appellants had filed a classification list indicating the particulars of goods as "Steel ingots including steel melting scrap" and this was admittedly approved by the Assistant Collector. Hence, it cannot be said that they had suppressed any material fact. It is well known that Runners and Risers do arise in the course of manufacture