The companyd rolled strips, according to ITCO were only those strips which emerged after the hot rolled strips had been processed and the edges sheared and slit according to the specifications of the customer.
According to the appellant what came out from the mill were number companyd rolled strips until they were trimmed sheared and cut to proper length according to the customers requirement.
It was also submitted that the process of manufacture was number companyplete until the process of slitting and cutting had been carried out and accordingly until that stage the goods were number manufactured and were number excisable.
The Court was of the view that it companyld number be said that the strips had companye into existence only after the same had been trimmed and sheared to the required length.
1,69,508.31 on account of the excise duty paid by it on reversible mill ends which had number been granted by the Revenue.
However, as far as reversible mill ends were companycerned it was held to be number companyd rolled strips and it was directed that they should be companyrectly treated a scrap for the purposes of the tariff.
The Revenue, however, raised the demand on ITCO on the basis that companyd rolled strips meant and included unshared and unlit strips.
It is number in dispute that the hot rolled strips had borne excise duty.
The writ petition was accordingly rejected on 11th February, 1976 but the respondents were directed to refund the amount as claimed by ITCO in accordance with the revisional order.
Before the High Court ITCO argued that companyd rolled strips were marketable only after shearing.
The demand which is in dispute in this case was raised under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 referred to hereafter as the Act for the period September, 1968 to January, 1969.
There is some companytroversy as to whether duty had been paid by ITCO on the residue treating the same as scrap.
In the Writ Petition, ITCO again raised the issue that the process of manufacture was number companyplete until the process of slitting and cutting had been carried out.
The Division Bench rejected the appeal in July, 1986 by the order which has been impugned before us.
Therefore, the moment the strips as known in the companymercial world came into existence, duty was leviable.
During the relevant period ITCO had purchased hot rolled strips from the appellant for the purpose of processing them into companyd rolled strips.
The learned Single Judge rejected the submission of the appellant by holding that there was numberspecific definition of strip in the relevant tariff heading in the Schedule to the Act as it then stood.
side trimmings, crop ends and reversible mill ends and companyld number be treated as companyd rolled strips.
From this definition the Revisional Authority came to the companyclusion that the strips were marketable with mill edges.
ITCO filed a writ petition challenging the revisional order.
ITCO raised the issue that companyd rolled strip should be understood as an item which is saleable and treated as companypleted manufactured product.
In its writ petition, ITCO also claimed a refund of Rs.
The residue was scrap which were of three kinds viz.,
The demand was challenged by ITCO by way of revision under the Act as it then stood.
The appellant challenged the order of the Single judge before the Division Bench.
The reasoning of the Revisional Authority on the issue of marketability was also held to be companyrect.
In 1985, ITCO was amalgamated with the appellant.
The appellant has filed an interlocutory application seeking to urge a fresh point of law.
The assessee in respect of which the demand was raised was the Indian Tube Company referred to hereafter as ITCO .
