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

M.SANTHANAM, P.C.JAIN
Aravali Ispat Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.S. Bedi,H.L. Verma

ORDER

P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. The adjudicating authority has demanded duty of Rs.18711/- and has imposed a penalty of Rs.250/- on the ground that the appellant has availed of benefit of notification 208/83 dated 1.8.83 in the manufacture of iron castings. It has been stated that the said notification gives the benefit of duty on iron casting if it is made out of raw materials specified in the notification alone. The raw materials mentioned in the notification do not include M.S. Scrap which has also been used by the appellant in the manufacture of the said iron castings. It has further been stated by the adjudicating authority that the addition of steel scrap in the list of raw materials was made by amendment of the said notification w.e.f. 1.3.84. vide notification 38/84.

2. On the other hand, learned consultant has submitted that the major raw material used in the manufacture of iron castings is old iron scrap which is mentioned in the list of raw materials in notification 208/83. Addition of 20 to 30% of steel scrap is used only to improve the physical properties of the final product, namely iron castings. Addition to' this small percentage of steel scrap does not change the essen

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