ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. M/s. Atam Concast Steels (P) Ltd. have filed this application for rectification of mistake on the ground that in Trade Notice No. 38/92, dated 5-8-1992 it was clarified that restrictions under Clause 3 of the second proviso would apply only to such scrap which is generated by breaking up of Indian ships and that this Trade Notice was not taken into account by the Tribunal in regard to scrap obtained from breaking up of imported ships and thus there has been a mistake apparent in the Final Order No. A/1087/94-NB, dated 20th December, 1994 [reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 448 (Tribunal)].
2. Shri Kulvinder Singh, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that Trade Notice No. 38/92, dated 5-8-1992 in para-1 had clearly stated as “The trade and all others concerned are hereby informed that the question regarding applicability of Clause 3 of the second proviso to Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 (as amended) to the goods and material obtained from breaking up of ships, boats, etc. of imported origin has been examined and it has been decided that restriction regarding modvat credit would not apply to scrap obtained from breaking up of the imported ships in India. The restriction would apply only to such scrap which is generated by breaking up of Indian ship”. The learned counsel submitted that this Trade Notice clearly permitted them to take credit of the duty paid on scrap obtained from breaking up of imported ships. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants had produced the relevant gate-passes under which the scrap was received and the duty was paid; that there is no dispute about the payment of higher amount of duty. The learned counsel therefore, prayed that the order may be rectified and they may be permitted to take credit of the duty actually paid on the scrap obtained by breaking up of foreign ships, imported into India.
3. Shri K.K. Dutta, the learned JDR submitted that there was no mistake in the Final Order and therefore, the application for rectification may be dismissed.
4. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. I find that Para-1 of the Trade Notice of Chandigarh Collectorate, the relevant portion of which has been extracted in this order clearly permits that restriction regarding modvat credit would not apply to scrap obtained from breaking up of imported ships in India. This restriction was subject only to the condition that the duty-paying document was available. I also find that the duty-paying documents are also available. I also find that the duty-paying documents are also available which clearly indicate that the scrap was obtained by breaking up of imported ships. Having regard to this, I order the following modification in Final Order No. A/1087/94-NB as under :-
“In place of paras 10, 11 and 12, the following shall be substituted namely, “having regard to the fact that modvat credit restriction of Rs. 500 would not apply to scrap obtained from breaking up of the imported ships in India.
I order that modvat credit amounting to Rs. 43,381.94 is permissible to the applicant in this case and, therefore, the same is allowed and I hold accordingly.”
5. In view of the above, the ROM is allowed and the matter is disposed of in the above terms.
