Bharucha, C. J. I - (1.) -The case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (Civil Appeal No. 7937 of 1995) has been referred by a Bench of three learned Judges to the Constitution Bench because it appea-red to the Bench that there was a conflict between the view taken in Collector of Central Excise, Patna vs. Usha Martin Industries (1997) 7 SCC 47 and the view taken in Motiram Tolaram and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (1999) 6 SCC 375, both being judgments of Benches of three learned Judges. Because of that reference, the other cases (Civil Appeals Nos. 2496-97) were also so referred.
(2.) The only question that we are concerned with relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid"
(3.) In the case of Usha Martin, the relevant Exemption Notification read, so far as is relevant, thus : "Exemption in goods falling under Item 26-AA(i-a) made from duty-paid material: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the M.F. (D.R.) No. 131/62-CE, dated 13-6-1962, the Central Government hereby exempts iron or steel products falling under sub-item (i-a) of Item No. 26-AA made from any of the following materials or a combination thereof namely : (i) fresh unused re-rollable scrap 'on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid'...". (Emphasis supplied) The other clauses used the same phrase.;