1047 The respondent filed appeals before the Collector of Central Excise who by order dated 30 July, 1965 dismissed the respondents appeals.
22 of 1964 issued on 1 March, 1964.
In companyumn 2 of the said numberification the following descriptions and duty appear Sl.
The appellant Government relied on Notification No.
30/60 dated 1 March, 1960 because remelted scrap obtained from unserviceable casting moulds, viz.,
The Government held that the respondent was number entitled to any exemption under Notification No.
29.35 per metric ton for the words Rs.
The Revenue Authorities in the said order did number accept the claim of the respondent for exemption on the ground that duty paid pig iron was mixed with number duty paid pig iron.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18 4 1969 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case number.
The appellants claimed before the Revenue Authority exemption from the payment of duty in respect of duty paid pig iron which was used in the making of steel ingots.
The High Court quashed the orders of the Revenue Authorities dated 7 July, 1967.
20.35 per metric ton the words and figures substituted were Rs.
It was also said on behalf of the appellant that scrap iron was different from pig iron, and, therefore, the refund of the duty paid on pig iron would number arise.
The respondent in the affidavit in reply in the High Court stated that the question for companysideration in these writ applications is the rate of duty leviable on steel ingots produced from processed moulds and bottom plates which have already borne a duty.
Second, Notification No.
The appellant companytended that exemption is given for virgin pig iron and if pig iron was used and thereafter reduced to scrap there companyld be numberexemption in respect of scrap.
Descriptions Duty No.
75/62 dated 25 April, 1962 which gave exemption to steel ingots from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon if produced out of scrap obtained from duty paid pig iron or if produced out of old iron or steel scrap or scrap obtained from duty paid steel ingots or products.
30/60 was amended by substituting the figures and words Rs.
120 of 1960 dated 1 October, 1960 Notification No.
The respondent manufactures iron and steel products.
By Notification No.
75/62 dated 25 April, 1962 gave exemption to scrap iron in cases and when Notification No.
The Revenue referred to rejected ingot moulds and bottom stools as scrap.
ingot moulds and bottom stools was used in companyjunction with other number duty paid pig iron in the manufacture of steel ingots.
The respondent manufactures ingot moulds and bottom stools from pig iron for use in steel melting shops.
75/62 dated 25 April, 1962 for two reasons.
30 per ton.
If produced out of scrap obtained from duty paid pig iron Rs 30 per M.T. If produced out of old iron or steel scrap obtained from duty paid steel ingots or products 75/76 Nil The rates given in these aforesaid numberifications were further amended by Notification No.
The High Court quashed the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
In the revision order of the Revenue dated 7 July, 1967 in paragraphs 4 and 6 it is stated that the claim of the respondent was for duty paid material used in the making of steel ingots.
The appellant Government relied on Notification No.
First, it was said that the exemption in Notification No.
The numberification exempted steel ingot in which duty paid pig iron was used.
Duty was realised from the respondent on steel ingots in the making of which duty paid pig iron of rejected ingot moulds and bottom stools was used along with number duty paid materials.
As a result of the Finance Act, 1964 Items No.
The respondent claimed a set off of duty to the extent of duty paid on pig iron being the remelted scrap used in the manufacture of steel ingots.
Shyamla Pappu, Girish Chandra and S. P. Nayar for the Appellants.
75/62 dated 24 April, 1962 the Central Government in exercise of powers companyferred by Rule 8 1 of the Rules exempted steel ingots falling under Item 26 of the First Schedule to the Act and specified in Column 2 of the table appended to the numberification from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of duty specified in the companyresponding entry in Column 2 of the said table.
25 and 26 were substituted by the following 1046 The respondents case before the Revenue Authorised and also in the High Court in short was this When ingot moulds and bottom stools become unfit for further use these are scrapped into pieces and remelted in the respondents steel melting shops in an admixture with other number duty paid scraps and hot metal in the manufacture of steel ingots.
The respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the Ministry of Finance under section 36 of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
30/60 dated 1 March, 1960 issued by the Central Government in terms of Rule 8 1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 hereinafter called the Rules exempting steel ingots in which duty paid pig iron is used from so much of the duty leviable thereon as is in excess of Rs.
The respondent based the claim for exemption on Notification No.
614 to 626 of 1967.
75/62 was rescinded in 1964 numberexemption companyld thereafter be claimed in respect of scrap.
30/60 dated 1 March, 1960 for the words and figures Rs.
The claim of the respondent for exemption in respect of duty paid pig iron was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central excise by his order dated 29 August, 1965.
The Government by an order dated 7 July, 1967 rejected the revision petition of the respondent.
723 737 of 1971.
20/ per ton.
The respondent challenged the orders in the High Court.
The respondent claimed exemption in respect of duty paid pig iron on rejected moulds and bottom stools used in the making of steel ingots.
By numberification No.
The rates in respect of Notification No.
The High Court also held that the numberification would have to be interpreted in a manner that the statute would number cast a burden twice over for payment of tax on the tax payer unless the language of the statute is so companypellingly certain to that effect.
30/ per ton.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 18 April, 1969 of the High Court of Patna.
S. Pathak, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur, R. Narain and A. K. Verma Mrs. for the Respondent.
