JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran
1. This appeal arises from OIA No. 98 & 99/93 dated 28.9.93 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appellant’s prayer for grant of benefit of Exemption Notification No. 90/88 and 202/88 on the ground that exemption was not available for the period 20.5.88 to 15.8.89 and the exemption was restored only w.e.f. 16/8/89 in terms of notification NO. 170/89 dated 16.8.89 without any retrospective effect and therefore they are required to pay duty.
2. Ld. Counsel Shri G. Srinivasa Raghavan has contended that the Tribunal in the case of APEX STEELS (P) LTD v. CCE Chandigarh reported in 1995 (80) ELT 368 have clearly had that benefit of amended notification is available in view of findings rendered therein that amended notification has got retrospective effect. He has also relied on the final order rendered in a batch of 55 appeals by a bench of Three Members of Delhi Bench in final order No. 196 to 225/95 dated 21.4.95 in the case of SRI RAM STEEL ROLLING MILLS & OTHERS v. CCE wherein similar issue was considered by the Tribunal applying the ratio of the M/s. APEX STEELS (P) LTD., cited supra have allowed the appeal holding the items in question i.e. Tor Steels and the benefit of notification. They have also given a finding that “twisting of steel rods and popularly known as tar steels” or “CTD bars twisted after hot rolling” is not goods and does not amount to manufacture. He submits that both these points were dealt with by the Larger Bench which held in their favour and similar appeals have been allowed. He also referred to another order rendered in the case of reported in 2000(118) ELT 712.
3. Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran reiterated the submissions that during the relevant period, there is no notification and subsequent notification and it does not have retrospective effect and therefore he sought for dismissal of the appeal. He however had nothing to say on the citations cited by the Counsel.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the judgements cited, we notice that the Tribunal have already given a detailed finding in the case of APEX STEELS (P) LTD., (supra) holding the notification to have retrospective effect and that benefit was required to be extended. The tribunal has also taken a view that notwithstanding the fact they are eligible for the benefit of the notification even otherwise the item CTD bars twisted after hot rolling popularly known as “Tor Steels” was also eligible for benefit of notification and also that the same cannot be considered as goods as twisting of plain rods into CTD bars does not amount to a process of manufacture. Same ratio has been followed in a batch of 55 appeals in the case of SRI RAM STEEL ROLLING MILLS AND ORS. V. CCE Rajkot by final order No. 196 to 225/95 dated 21.4.95 by the Larger Bench. In view of settled position of the law, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed by following respectfully the ratio of the cited judgement.
(Pronounced in Open Court on 4.12.01)