CCE Vs. MANGLA ISPAT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue has filed his this appeal being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings initiated against the assessees under Show -Cause Notice dated 16.8.2000.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel product that is casting alloy and MS Ingots, billets classifiable under Chapter heading 72, 73 and 84. On a surprise visit to the factory of the appellant certain checks were conducted. It was found that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of re -rolled products. Scrutiny of the invoices for the purchase of raw materials revealed that the respondent herein had purchased alloy steel ingots falling under tariff heading 7224. They had during the material period manufactured 1842.135 MTs. of ingots. A Show -cause Notice case issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 37,96,274 should not be recovered and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the Show -cause Notice the respondents herein submitted that their plant was fully automatic and suitable for MS bars only; that alloy steel could not be rolled in their plant. They also referred to a certificate issued by supplier of bar mill certifying that alloy steel could not be rolled in this mill. It was contended by them that they were manufacturing the said bars used for concrete reinforcement stating that such goods could not be manufactured from alloy steel. They also referred to purchase order received by them to show that the product supplied by them was MS ingots. It was also contended that invoices showed the ingots of iron and steel and that it was not specified whether it was alloy or non -alloy. They also submitted that during the material period of February 1999 to June 1999 they purchased 9186 MTs. out of which they purchased from M/s Raghuveer Metal only 1842 MTs.

(3.) Learned Commissioner after examining their pleas and contentions dropped the proceedings. The matter was reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which gave rise to the present appeal.