ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. In the five appeals being dealt with in this order the issues involved are common and we propose to deal with the appeal at serial No. 1 and the order passed in this case will apply in respect of other appeals also.
2. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad. The appellants had been called upon to pay duty in respect of MS round bars produced by them by re-rolling of runners and risers, the melting scrap and misroll and short length ingots, denying them the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 206/63 and as amended from time to time. The appellants are found to have cleared 717.636 metric tonnes of MS round bars without payment of duty. The Collector had denied them the exemption under 206/63 as claimed by them as also under 152/77. The benefit of 206/63 was denied for the reason that the MS round bars had not been produced out of the materials enumerated in the notification. Benefit of notification 152/77 was refused for the reasons that runners and risers could not be held to be ingots. The appellants had also pleaded the question of time bar before the Collector who rejected the plea of the appellants for the reason that the appellants had not even obtained the licence and had not filed any classification list etc., and, therefore, applicability of extended period under rule 9(2) read with Section 11A had been made applicable. We observe that the appellants plea before us is on the ground that runners and risers for the purposes of the notification 152/77 should be treated as duty paid ingots and also that these should be taken to be covered under the description of materials specified under Notification 206/63 and the MS rods allowed the benefit of exemption. Plea taken is that the runners and risers are fresh unused re-rollable scrap and also that some MS rods have been produced out of cut ends and misrolls which are in the nature of used re-rolling scrap and, therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 206/63 should be made available to them. The appellants also claimed before us for set off of duty paid on runners and risers and other materials under notification No. 17/71 notwithstanding their not having followed Rule 56A procedure. So far as the claim of set off duty is concerned, it may be pointed out that out of that this is contingent upon the appellants following the procedure under 56A which has not been done. Therefore the benefit of this is hot available. So far as the plea regarding treating the runners and risers as steel ingots is concerned, we have taken into account various pleas made by the appellants in this appeal which was heard with its appeals in respect of the same issue. The orders in this regard have been issued in respect of those appeals in the CEGAT Order dated 29.5.86 in Appeal No. E/1414/83-B1 and other six appeals in case of Collector Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Modern Steel Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh and Ors. We have followed the decision of M/s. Ravindra Steel : 1983 ELT 413 and held that runners and risers are not ingot. The benefit of exemption is, therefore, not available when runners and risers are used for manufacture of MS rods based on this plea.
3. So far as the plea for the benefit of notification No. 206/63 is concerned, this is available in respect of iron and steel products falling under 26AA(la) in case these are made from any one of the following material or combination thereof:
(i) fresh unused re-rollable scrap on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid;
(ii) semi-finished steel including bloom, billets labs, sheet bars, tin bars, and hoe bars, on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid;
(iii) old and used re-rollable scrap; from the payment of the whole of the excise duty leviable on such products.
The appellants claim is that runners and risers are covered under description at serial No. 1. We observe term rerolling unused scrap has not been defined in tariff nor any technical definition of the same has been given by the lower authorities in their order. It has been merely observed that the runners and risers generally are held to be melting scrap and are utilized for the purpose of melting. We observe in the absence of any authority in this regard, the benefit of interpretation of the term will have to go in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the material even though generally used for melting purposes and is not in the class as ingots, yet has been utilized by the appellants for rerolling purpose. It is not disputed that it is fresh and unused material. In view of this we hold that so far as the runners and risers are concerned, these can be. taken to be covered by item (1) of the notification No. 206/63. However, we observe that there is nothing on record or in the findings of the lower authorities that runners and risers were duly paid materials for the purposes of extending the benefit of notification. In view of the above, so far as this aspect is concerned, we remand the case to Collector (Appeal) for de novo consideration and decision in the light of the above.
3A. So far as other materials out of which MS rods are produced and in respect of which duty demand has been raised and described as melting scrap are concerned, the nature of these has not been brought on record nor any findings in regard thereto have been given by the lower authorities in their orders. However, the appellants in the plea before us have stated that end cuts, rolling mill scrap etc. have been utilised. No information or data has been furnished in this regard in the proceedings before us also. In view of this, no finding can be given on the plea that the melting scrap utilised for the production of MS rods falls under any one of the categories of the material specified under notification 206/63. The appellants plea in this regard is, therefore, rejected. So far as the plea regarding time bar is concerned, we find that appellants had not obtained a Central Excise Licence nor they had complied with the formality like filing of classification list etc. The appellants have pleaded that the officers of Central Excise were aware of the manufacture of MS rounds by the appellants and the benefit of the notification that they were availing of. No evidence in this regard has been produced before us. It is, therefore, to be held that the duties demanded in terms of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A or Rule 10 as the case may be of the Central Excise Act and Rules provided thereunder applying extended time limit is maintainable in law. In view of the above, the lower authority’s order is set aside by remand. The orders of the lower authorities in respect of other appeals listed at serial Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of this order, are, therefore, also set aside by remand also and they are directed to re-decide the cases de novo in the light of the findings above.