Commissioner Of Central ... vs G.B.S.Industries

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 18-2007 dated 30/03/2007 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals), Hyderabad]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Shri JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT

HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs And Service Tax HYDERABAD-III NULL OPP LB STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

G.B.S.INDUSTRIES, PLOT.NO.65,IDA CHERLAPALLY, HYDERABAD Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Ram, AR For the Appellant

Shri G.P. Sastry, Advocate For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 04/02/2015

Date of Decision: 04/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Shri JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT

HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No.20283 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the demand taking a view that pig iron powder and cast iron powder are not different. In the first round of litigation, the matter had been remanded to the original authority to get the sample tested before coming to the conclusion. This is because the definition of pig iron is available under Note 1 of Chapter 72 and different elements in pig iron powder have been specified therein. In pursuance of OIA No.516/96-CE dt. 09/12/1996, which was upheld by the Tribunal in Final Order No.19/1998 dt. 05/01/1998, samples of cast iron powder were drawn and tested in Customs House, Chennai, Calcutta and Vintor Labs, Hyderabad. Based on the test report, the Commissioner(Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the specifications of samples of cast iron powder tested, showed that samples conformed to the specifications of pig iron in terms of Note 1(a) of Chapter 72. Notification No.202/1988, Sl.No.1 is the notification, benefit of which has been claimed by the appellant. The description of inputs and definition of final products which are exempted are as under:

Sl.No. Description of inputs Description of final products

1.

Pig iron and spiegeleisen in ingots, blocks or other primary forms; ferrous waste and scrap; remelting scrap ingots of iron; granules and powders, of pig iron and spiegeleisen; puddle bars and piling of iron; cast articles of iron Pig iron and spiegeleisen in ingots, blocks or other primary forms; waste and scrap of iron; remelting scrap ingots of iron; granules and powders; of pig iron and cast articles of iron falling under sub-heading No.7325.10; iron sleepers; ingot moulds of iron falling under heading No.84.54; tubes and pipes and blanks therefor of iron; and case iron pipe fittings.

Both falling under sub-heading No.7325.10.

2. It can be seen that once case iron powder and pig iron powder are considered to be one and the same, the respondent becomes eligible for the exemption. Therefore the appeal of the Revenue is rejected. (Order pronounced in open court)

JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM PRESIDENT

B.S.V. MURTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja..

3