LAWS(CE)-2005-7-147

BUSINESS COMBINES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On July 15, 2005
Business Combines Ltd. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (a) In appeal No. 2718, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of SG Iron Castings etc. and is availing the credit of duty paid on inputs, amongst other things have declared off cuts of M.S. Sheets (Melting scrap) Ferrous waste and scrap (remitting) scrap of alloy steel; other Ferrous scrap; waste and scrap of steel; on various dates vide declarations filed as prescribed under the rules -

(2.) It is found - (a) It is an admitted fact and finding that M/s. Mehta Trading Corporation and M/s. National Steel Traders are the main suppliers of scrap to M/s. BCL and they are second stage dealers, inasmuch as they obtain scrap from other dealers, and thereafter sell the same to the M/s. BCL who avails credit on the documents, so issued by these second stage dealers. (b) M/s. Kohinoor Trading, a first stage dealer along with M/s. M.H. Corporation. They obtain/procure scrap from original manufacturers, like any other first stage dealer, i.e. from Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Bajaj Auto, Telco etc. and also sell to second stage dealers scrap obtained by them viz. to M/s. Mehta Trading and M/s. National Steel Traders. (c) The notice alleges, the assessee to have received the scrap in bundles, some of them having punched CRCA sheets; scrap; termed as assembled scrap (alleged as market scrap) generated during the stamping and lamination, as against MS Sheet off cut scrap shown in the invoices. (d) It is also an admitted position found, that assessee requires all kinds of scrap which have been declared. The evidence relied by the adjudicator, of the scrap being procured in loose form is then being converted into bundles/bales and thereafter sent to M/s. BCL. The difference in commercial invoice description and the Central Excise invoice description explained is due to an arrangement for Banking purposes. (e) The Commissioner has arrived at his conclusions - (i) The lower price charged by the first stage dealer for sales, would it self show that they had not sold the same material that was purchased from original manufacturers.