1989 (9) TMI 99 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the respondent-manufacturer was entitled to the benefit of Central Government s Notification No. 105/82-CE, dated February 28, 1982? Held that - The Tribunal was right in its conclusion that sodium sulphate was used in the manufacture of paper as raw material within the meaning of the Notification No. 105/82-CE dated February 28, 1982 as we do not lend themselves to the understanding that, for something to qualify itself as raw material , it must necessarily and in all cases go into, and be found, in the end-product. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to pro forma credits of duty paid on "sodium sulphate".
2. Interpretation of "raw material" under Central Government's Notification No. 105/82-CE.
3. Distinction between goods "used" in manufacture and goods used as "raw material".

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to pro forma credits of duty paid on "sodium sulphate":
The respondent-manufacturer, engaged in the manufacture of paper and paperboards, claimed pro forma credits for duty paid on sodium sulphate under Notification No. 105/82-CE. The Superintendent of Central Excise denied this credit, arguing that sodium sulphate was burnt up in the manufacturing process and did not remain in the final product, hence it could not be considered a "raw material". The Assistant Collector, however, held that sodium sulphate was an essential raw material, setting aside the show cause notice. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disagreed and remitted the matter for re-adjudication, but the Tribunal restored the Assistant Collector's order, considering sodium sulphate as a raw material essential for the manufacturing process.

2. Interpretation of "raw material" under Central Government's Notification No. 105/82-CE:
The notification exempts excisable goods from duty if any goods used in their manufacture qualify as "raw material" or component parts. The Tribunal, referencing its decision in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd., held that "raw material" must be interpreted in context, considering whether the substance serves a distinct and definitive purpose in the manufacturing process. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the term should be understood in its ordinary sense, considering its essential role in the manufacturing process, even if it is consumed or burnt up.

3. Distinction between goods "used" in manufacture and goods used as "raw material":
The appellant argued that the term "raw material" implies a substance that either remains in its original form or undergoes alteration but is present in the final product. The Supreme Court, however, held that the essential test is whether the ingredient is indispensable to the manufacturing process, regardless of its presence in the final product. The Court cited the case of Deputy CST v. Thomas Stephen and Co. Ltd., distinguishing between materials used as fuel and those integral to the manufacturing process. The Court concluded that sodium sulphate, essential for the chemical reactions in paper manufacturing, qualifies as "raw material" despite being consumed in the process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that sodium sulphate is used as "raw material" in the manufacture of paper under Notification No. 105/82-CE. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the classification of a substance as "raw material" depends on its essential role in the manufacturing process rather than its physical presence in the final product.