1989 (2) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the eligibility of Titanium Metal Anodes for MODVAT credit under Rule 57-A and whether the entire anode or only the noble metal coating is eligible for such credit.

Eligibility of Titanium Metal Anodes for MODVAT Credit:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of Titanium Metal Anodes for MODVAT credit under Rule 57-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants, manufacturers of caustic soda lye, claimed credit for duty paid on these anodes under the MODVAT scheme. The Collector (Appeals) allowed credit for Graphite Anodes but disallowed it for Titanium Anodes. The appellant contended that Titanium Anodes should be eligible for credit as they are not excluded under Rule 57-A and are essential in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal found that Titanium Anodes are not excluded under the rule and are used in relation to the manufacture of caustic soda lye, making them eligible for MODVAT credit.

Application of Tribunal's Special Bench Decision:
The Tribunal considered whether its previous decision regarding Notification No. 201/79 on the same product would be applicable in the context of MODVAT credit. The Special Bench had previously held that the item in question could be regarded as an input used in manufacturing. The Tribunal found that in the context of MODVAT rules, which are more liberal than the restrictions in the notification, there was no justification for denying MODVAT credit for Titanium Anodes. The Tribunal relied on the previous decision and allowed the appeal filed by the manufacturers, dismissing the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal held that Titanium Metal Anodes are eligible for MODVAT credit as they are not excluded under Rule 57-A and are essential in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal also found support in its previous decision regarding a similar product under a different notification. Therefore, the appeal filed by the manufacturers was allowed, and the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise was dismissed.