VARIAVA, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is against the Order dated 26/05/1993 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows :
The Appellants are manufacturers of ingots. Ingots are manufactured out of among others, ends of M.S. Flats. The Appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 208/83 dated 1/08/1983. The relevant portion of the said Notification reads as follows :

"(4) In exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed (such goods being hereinafter referred to as "final products") and falling under Item No. 2 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under S. 3 of the said Act.

Provided that such final products are made from any goods of the description specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table (such goods being hereinafter referred to as "inputs" and falling under the said item on which the duty of excise leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (5 of 1975), as the case may be, has already been paid.

Provided further that no credit of the duty paid on the inputs has been taken under Rule 56-A of the said rules.

Explanation : For the purposes of this notification, all stocks of inputs in the country, except such stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid, shall be deemed to be inputs on which duty has already been paid.

THE TABLE
JUDGEMENT_178_JT7_2002Html1.htm
The Appellants claimed that the inputs used by them viz. "ends of M.S. Flats" fell under Sub-Item 8 and their final product fell under Sub-Item 6(II). On 1/08/1985, the Superintendent, Central Excise served a Show Cause Notice calling upon the Appellants to show cause why the exemption availed of, from 17-2-1985 to 31-3-1985, be not withdrawn. The Appellants filed their reply dated 29/08/1985. The Appellants claimed that the inputs namely pieces of steel roughly shaped by action of rolling or forging fell under Sub-Item 8. By an Order dated 18/12/1985, it was held that the Appellants were not entitled to exemption under the above mentioned Notification. The appeal filed by the Appellants before the Collector (Appeals) was allowed on 29/04/1986.

The Collector then filed an appeal under S. 35-B before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order that Appeal has been allowed. It has been held that the inputs used by the Appellants cannnot fall under Sub-Item 8 as that item only deals with products which are given a rough shape by the process of rolling and forging and which are then given their final shape by further processing. It has been held that the "ends of Flats" remain "Flats" even after cutting and/or they would be "waste and scrap" falling under Sub-Item 3. It has been held that as the Notification does not cover either "waste and scrap" or "Flats", the Appellants would not be entitled to exemption under this Notification.

(3.)MR. A. K. Jain has, in assailing the judgment, submitted that the Tribunal is entirely wrong in coming to the conclusion that the "ends of Flats" are "Flats". He submits that explanation No. XXI describes a "Flat" as follows :
"(xxi) "flats" means finished products, generally of rectangular cross-section, having rolled edges only (square or slightly rounded), of controlled contour and of thickness 3 millimetres and over, width 400 millimetres and below had supplied in straight lengths and includes flat bars with bulb that has swelling on one or two faces of the same edge and a width of less than 400 millimetres."

He also points out that under explanation (ix), the term "waste and scrap" has been described as follows :

"(ix) 'waste and scrap' means waste and scrap of iron or steel fit only for the recovery of metal or for use in the manufacture of chemicals, but does not include slag, ash and other residues."