UNITED STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 16-9-1999 by which the Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, hereinafter referred to as Act.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of Iron Bars. During the relevant period, the petitioner had cleared 559.535 M.T. of Iron bars. The petitioner claimed exemption under the Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 2-5-1988 as amended time to time on the ground that in puts used in the manufacture was deemed to have been duty paid in view of the explanation to the notification. The Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur vide order dated 4-3-1998 confirmed the demand of excise duty of Rs. 5,46,626/- on the clearance of Iron bars. The Addl. Commissioner had observed that the party had never declared the source of purchase to the Department nor produced any duty paying documents to establish their case. He, further, observed that the party had contended that they used M.S. ingots and unserviceable and worn out the railway parts namely rails Sleepers, Axels. Wheels, Springs, Fish Plates etc. as raw materials and if the party had used any other materials also and it was open for them to produce G.Ps./bills of other duty paid inputs and their source and payment particulars etc. but party has not produced any records to show that they have used any other duly paid materials along with railway material in the manufacture of final product. Railway materials have been treated as non-duty paid material being waste and scrap and accordingly disallowed the claim of exemption. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. Petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal, New Delhi which is pending. Along with the appeal, petitioner filed an application under Section 35F for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty demanded. Tribunal vide order dated 14-6-1999 rejected the application. Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has not made out a strong prima facie case in view of detailed finding that the inputs used in the manufacture of the Iron Bars having been purchased from railway Stockyard are clearly recognizable as non-duty paid material.

(3.) I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel.