Per P.K. Kapoor : Since the above captioned appeals involve identical issues, they are disposed of by this common order. The appellants in these cases were engaged in the manufactures of M/s. Rounds/Squares falling under Heading No. 72.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 out of rejected railway material, viz. old and used rails/wheels/axles/metal tyres. Enquiries made by the Department revealed that in these cases the finished goods were being manufactured by the Concerned manufacturers without obtaining Central Excise Licence in Form L-4 and without payment of duty under the impression that M.S. Rounds/ Squares falling under Heading 74.14 out of used railway material viz. old and used rails/wheels/axles/metal tyres etc. were exempted from the payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988. Since the Department was of the view that old and used railway material i.e., rails/wheels/ axles/metal tyres did not fall in the category of any of the inputs specified in Column 2 of Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20.5.88, the appellants were served with a show cause notice alleging the contravention of various provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rules and they were required to show cause as to why Central Excise duty on the finished goods cleared during the period indicated in the show cause notice should not be recovered. The show cause notices which were issued on different dates in 1993 and sought the recovery of duty on clearances during different periods between 1988 and 1991 by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 11A on the grounds that the appellants had suppressed material facts from the Department.

2. In their written replies to the show cause notices and also during the personal hearing before the Collector, each of the appellants denied the allegations. They contended that according to the prevailing practice and the clarifications issued by the department from time to time, used and rejected railway materials such as rails, wheels, axles, metal tyres etc. had to be deemed as shapes and sections which were specified under column 2 against Sr. No. 2 of the table annexed to notification no.202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988. It was also contended that such materials could alternatively be deemed as rollable or re-rollable materials which are added in column two again Sr. No.2 of the table annexed to notification no.202/88-CE dated 20.5.88, with effect from 1.3.92. In each case, the appellants also contended that the demand was time barred. However, by the impugned orders, the Collector rejected the appellants contentions and confirmed the demands.

3. Appearing on behalf of M/s. Vivek Re-rolling Mills, M/s. Bajrang Steel Rolling Mills, M/s. Bhartiya Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Vishal Steel Rolling Mills, Shri R. Santhanam, Learned Advocate stated that the show cause notice as well as the adjudication order clearly ignored the prevailing practice in respect of similar finished product as specifically approved by the Central Board of Excise. & Customs who had issued circulars from time to time to the effect that the inputs consisting of rejected railway material etc. could be treated as angles, shapes and sections specified in Column 2 against Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification 202/88-CE dated 20.5.88. He submitted that such inputs had always been regarded as duty paid and therefore the product manufactured therefrom had to be deemed as exempt from the payment of duty. He referred to the letter F. No. 139/40/87-CX4 dated 27.8.87 issued by the Board in reply to the letter dated 29/ 30.4.1987 of the Central Excise Collectorate, Indore, wherein it was clarified that unserviceable railway material must be treated as angles, shapes and sections falling under Heading No. 7210.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that whether old used and unserviceable rails purchased by re-rollers for cutting