Page 201 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] HANS INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA 591

the investigation are kept open, our order setting aside the penalty herein should
not be treated as exoneration of the appellant in the proceedings which follow on
completion of investigations against those persons.
9. In view of the above and subject to the observations made in para 8,
supra, we allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order in respect of the
appellant before us.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 591 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. III]
S/Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)
HANS INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA
Final Order No. A/10308/2020-WZB/AHD, dated 28-1-2020 in Appeal No.
C/190/2011
Melting scrap - Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. under Serial
No. 200 to melting scrap of iron and steel falling under Heading 7204 of Cus-
toms Tariff Act, 1975 - Assessee using imported material for melting thereof
for use in manufacture of ingots - Goods are melting scrap - Dispute as to
whether goods fell under Tariff Item 7204 41 00 or 7204 49 00 ibid not make
difference as for the purpose of Serial No. 200 of said notification all the waste
and scrap of Heading 7204 ibid were exempted if it were melting scrap - No
doubt regarding use of goods even though it was in nature of “HR Side Cut-
ting” as same had no other use except for melting - No misdeclaration of goods
by assessee and consequently goods not liable for confiscation being exempt-
ed goods - Enhancement of value also not legal and correct - Sections 14 and
111 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 5]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Ashok Magnetics Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (188) E.L.T. 510 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
Commissioner v. Multimetal Ltd. — 2002 (144) E.L.T. 574 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ....... [Paras 4, 5]
Commissioner v. P.V. Ukkru International Trade — 2009 (235) E.L.T. 229 (Ker.)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
G.G. Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner — 2018 (363) E.L.T. 708 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
Multimetals Ltd. v. Collector — 2003 (151) E.L.T. A309 — Distinguished ................................ [Paras 4, 5]
Natwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (242) E.L.T. 227 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
Pine Chemical Suppliers v. Collector — 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) — Distinguished .............. [Paras 4, 5]
Uma Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (226) E.L.T. 614 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  201