DECCAN COPPER COMMUTATORS AND PROFILES P LTD Vs. COLLR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 17-12-1987 rejecting the appellants' appeal and confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hubli, dated 31-8-1987.

(2.) The appellants herein are manufacturers of copper rods, flats and strips. Copper wire bars were imported by M.M.T.C. on behalf of appellant on payment of countervailing duty at the rate of Rs. 3000 - per Metric Tonne in addition to the Special Excise Duty. The copper wire bars were sent by the appellants to Ms. Navyug Steel Industries for purposes of construction into copper rods. Oats and strips and the goods were received by the appellants on such conversion and thereafter the appellants reduces the size and thickness of the rods, flats and strips. The appellants were permitted to avail the proforma credit faculty in terms of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules by order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hubli. dated 14-2-1985 in respect of the said goods. While filing the classification list, the appellants initially claimed the benefit of concessional Central Excise Notification No. 174/84-C.E. dated 1-8-1984 and the same was also approved by the Department. Subsequently the Department finding that the appellants availing the proforma benefit in terms of Rule 56A would be disentitled to the concessional benefits in terms of Notification No. 174 /84 referred to supra, instituted proceedings by means of Show Cause Notice dated 29-11-1985 which eventually culminated in the present impugned order appealed against.

(3.) SHRI K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R. submitted that it is not disputed by the appellants that the appellants are not entitled to the Notification No. 174/84 and the original authority has not gone into the question with reference to the applicability of the Notification No. 175/84, dated 1-8-1984 as amended in favour of the appellants. The learned S.D.R. further submitted that in discharging the duty liability in terms of Notification No. 175/84, the appellants would be entitled to take credit in respect of the duty suffered by the inputs inasmuch as the appellants had been permitted to avail proforma credit in terms of Rule 56A. The learned S.D.R. further submitted that the appellants would not be entitled to claim set off in respect of the countervailing duty of the goods in question and would be entitled to take credit under the proforma facility only in respect of the duly suffered by the inputs at the hands of M/s. Navyug Steel Industries. The learned S.D.R. also submitted that the question as to whether the appellants are the manufacturers or not in respect of the goods in question is a non-issue in the present appeal