(Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur ___________ Appellant;
v.
Tata Steel Ltd. __________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1091 of 2009, decided on August 3, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The question which fell for consideration before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata (in short “Tribunal”) was whether ‘Iron Ore’ and ‘Ore Concentrate’ are two distinct commercial commodities or one and the same?
2. The importance of this question stemmed from Notification No. 13/2000-CE which granted exemptions from excise duty to “integrated steel plants”. An integrated steel plant was defined as a plant which manufactures steel from ‘iron ore’ as the starting material. However, due to the fact that ‘iron ore’ cannot be manufactured in a factory and is necessarily mined and then refined to produce iron ‘ore concentrate’, an anomaly arose whereby, practically, no plant could have availed the benefit of the exemption contained in the Notification of 01.03.2000. Hence, to remedy this issue, a circular was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Excise & Customs, on 26.02.2003, which clarified that the word “ore” in the Notification would include “ore concentrate”.
3. In this background, vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent-M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (“M/s. TISCO Ltd.”) is an “Integrated Steel Plant”, which utilizes a similar process, as do all other integrated steel plants, of obtaining ‘Ore Concentrate’ via a benefaction process after mining the ‘iron ore’. The Tribunal ruled that, for the purpose of availing the exemption under the Notification dated 01.03.2000, it makes no difference whether ‘Ore’ is used as the starting material or ‘Ore Concentrate’, as the issue had already been clarified in the Circular dated 26.02.2003. The Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the expression “Integrated Steel Plant” is not capable of any different interpretation and it denotes a factory which produces Iron, Steel, as well as all forms of steel products.
4. We find that a similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Bhubneshwar – II v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 2003 (154) ELT 65 (East Regional Bench at Kolkata), wherein it was held that the process of obtaining ‘Iron Ore’ does not amount to manufacture under the Notification dated 01.03.2000.
5. As already mentioned, the circular of 26.02.2003 clarifies that the word “Ore” provided in the Explanation of “Integrated Steel Plant” in the Notification dated 01.03.2000, also includes ‘Ore Concentrate’.
6. We are informed that the above cited order of the Tribunal stands upheld by this Court in C.A. Nos. 6389-6390 of 2003 decided on 03.05.2012.
7. For the reasons afore-stated, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, we are of the view that there was no necessity for the Tribunal to make adverse remarks about functioning of the Commissionerate in paras 10 and 11 of the impugned order. Those observations are hereby expunged.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1091/2009
Commr. of Central Excise, Jamshedpur.….Appellant(s)
v.
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.….Respondent(s)
(IA No. 3/2016 – PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES AND IA No. 2/2009-STAY APPLICATION)
Date: 03-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
