Page 203 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] HANS INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA 593

• 2005 (188) E.L.T. 510 (Tri. - Chennai) - Ashok Magnetics Ltd. v. CC,
Chennai
• 2009 (235) E.L.T. 229 (Ker.) - CC v. P.V. Ukkru International
• 2008 (226) E.L.T. 614 (Tri. - Chennai) - Uma Mercantile P. Ltd. v. CC,
Chennai
• 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) - Pine Chemical Suppliers v. CC.
5. We have heard the Learned AR. As regard the representation from
the appellant, we find that the matter has been listed for regular hearing on 13-5-
2019, 27-6-2019, 19-8-2019, 26-9-2019, 29-10-2019, 21-11-2019 & 2-12-2019, on none
of the dates any one appeared on behalf of the appellant despite sending notices
on 21-11-2019 and 2-12-2019, therefore we take up the appeal for disposal on the
basis of available records. We find that the appellant had claimed exemption No-
tification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 under Serial No. 200, which extends
the benefit of nil rate of duty for Melting scrap of iron and steel falling under
Customs Chapter Heading No. 7204. We find that appellant is a manufacturing
unit and using the imported material for melting thereof and use in the manufac-
ture of ingots therefore, as per the use there is no doubt that the goods is melting
scrap. Even though there can be a dispute to whether it is falling under Customs
Tariff Heading No. 720 44 00 or 7204 49 00 but as per the Entry No. 200 for the
purpose of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. all the waste and
scrape of 7204 if it is a melting scrap are exempted. Therefore, as per the facts of
the present case the chapter sub-heading of the goods is not very significant. Ac-
cording to the nature of the goods there is no doubt that even though it is in the
nature of “HR Side Cutting” but the same has no other use except for melting
and all the melting scrap is covered under exemption Notification No. 21/2002-
Cus. under Serial No. 200. It is not the case of the department that the goods so
imported is not scrap but classifiable as HR Coil or Sheet. The Revenue also ac-
cepted that the goods is steel scrap, if that be so the goods i.e. “HR side cutting”
is admittedly scrap and falling under Customs chapter Heading No. 7204 and is
not liable to duty in terms of the notification (supra). Since, the goods are ex-
empted there is no implication of valuation. In these circumstances, it cannot be
said that the appellant has misdeclared the goods and consequently the goods
are not liable for confiscation. As regard the judgments relied upon by the
Learned AR, we have gone through each and every case and found that in all
those cases there is a dispute that whether the goods are classifiable as prime ma-
terial or scrap and in most of the judgments it was held that the goods even
though old and used but classifiable as prime material and not as a scrap. There-
fore, facts of all those cases are entirely different from the facts of the present case
for the reason that in the present case it is admitted by the Revenue also that the
goods imported is scrap only.
6. Therefore, the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the Learned AR
is not applicable in the present case. With the discussion and finding made by us
herein above, we are of the view that the goods are not liable for confiscation be-
ing exempted goods, consequently the enhancement of the value made by the
lower authority is also not legal and correct. Hence, the impugned order is modi-
fied. The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 28-1-2020)
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  203