STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the factual backdrop, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 332/2006 -Ex. Dt. 22/03/2006. On appeal by the Revenue, the said order was set aside and matter remanded.

(2.) IT is seen that the matter was heard by the Division Bench on 07/01/2013, in remand proceedings and vide Interim Order No. 163/2013, there was opinion of difference between the Member(Technical) and Member(Judicial) on the point of limitation. However, Member(Technical) expressed his opinion as regards merits of the case as also on limitation, rejecting the both, whereas Member(Judicial) only considered the limitation issue and held that the demand was barred by limitation. When the matter was placed before the Hon'ble President, as third Member, on 06/09/2013, it was observed that inasmuch as the matter stands remanded by the Hon'ble Chhattishgarh High Court for decision on merits as also on limitation, both the Members should have decided on the merits of the case. As such, the appellant was advised to move an application before the Member(Judicial) to express her opinion on both the issues. It is in this background that the matter was heard afresh by me, as regards the merits of the case.

(3.) THE appellant's contention is that the conveyor belts, when sold, after being repeatedly used do not attract any duty of excise inasmuch as no such duty is leviable on such used goods so cleared by them. Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty under heading 40.04 of Central Excise Tariff. The said heading stands reproduced by the learned Member(Technical) in his order. As is seen, the same refers to waste and scrap of rubber as defined in Note 6 to the Chapter note of the said chapter. The Revenue's contention is that the goods of rubber definitely not usable as such because of cutting up, wear or other reasons would fall under Chapter 40.