1. This is a revision application to the Government of India which, under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, is to be proceeded with as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Superintendent of Central Excise, MOR III, Nagpur, issued a Show Cause Notice on 21-6-1977 to the appellants (who were manufacturers of steel ingots falling under Item No. 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944) alleging that the appellants should have paid excise duty on 107.986 MT of steel melting scrap cleared by them during May, 1976; June, 1976; September, 1976 and February, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 100/-basic excise duty plus Rs. 100/- auxiliary excise duty per M.T. (Metric Tonne) instead of at Rs. 25/- basic excise duty plus Rs. 25/- auxiliary excise duty per M.T. The Show Cause Notice went on to state that Central Excise Notification No. 237/75 dated 9th December, 1975 under which the concessional rates of duty referred to earlier were fixed was applicable to "steel ingots" falling under Item 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and not to "steel melting scrap", although these latter goods also fell under the said tariff item. On these grounds, the notice sought to recover an amount of Rs. 16,206.50 as the differential amount of duty involved on the said goods. After considering the appellant's submissions made in writing and orally, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur made an order to the effect that the appellants should pay a sum of Rs. 16,182.90 as the differential duty involved on the steel melting scrap cleared by them on payment of the lower rates of duty held as not applicable to them. Against this order the appellants went in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who held that Central Excise Notification No. 237/75 dated 9th December, 1975 did not apply to "steel melting scrap". He also did not accept the plea of the appellants that the exemption contained in Central Excise Notification No. 54/64 dated 1-31964 was applicable in the instant case. He also rejected the appellant's contention that part of the duty demanded was hit by the time limit prescribed in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the result, he upheld the Assistant Collector's orders and rejected the appeal. It is against this order that the appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government which, as stated earlier, has to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal filed before it.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that item No. 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule reads as follows:-

"Steel ingots including steel melting scrap",

and, therefore, for the purpose of the Central Excise Tariff Item No. 26 and exemption notifications relating thereto, the expression "steel ingots" should be understood and interpreted in the sense it was used and described in the tariff entry. In other words, wherever the expression used was "steel ingots", it should be construed as including within its ambit "steel melting scrap". It would not be correct in interpreting Central Excise exemption notifications relating to Item 26 of the Excise Tariff Schedule to exclude steel melting scrap from the scope of the expression "steel ingots" since the tariff entry itself gave to the expression "steel ingots" the enlarged meaning of including steel melting scrap. The Legislature also had sought to tax both steel ingots and steel melting scrap at the same rate of duty. On these grounds, the Counsel argued that any interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 237/75 dated 9th December, 1975 in such a manner as to exclude steel melting scrap from the scope of the notification would not be a correct interpretation inasmuch as it would be inconsistent with the tariff entry. Besides, scrap was a waste product inevitably arising in the course of manufacture of steel ingots and it would be invidious and