1991 (9) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82
The appeals revolved around the question of whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82. In one appeal, the appellants, who were manufacturers of P.P. foods, used 58 mm closures to pack their products and were availing credit under the said Notification. The authorities denied the benefit post-amendment, stating that not every element used in packing could be considered raw material or component parts. In another appeal, the appellants used duty-paid Coproco adhesive to fix labels on unit containers for P.P. foods. The appellants argued, citing legal precedents, that anything essential to the manufacturing process or making the product marketable should be deemed raw material or component parts. The respondent did not contest this argument in light of the legal judgments presented by the appellants.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the Apex Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper Inds. Ltd., which emphasized that anything integral to the manufacturing process and necessary to make the product marketable should be deemed raw material or component parts. Since the manufacture of P.P. foods was completed by packing them in unit containers, the 58 mm caps and Coproco adhesive used by the appellants were considered raw materials. Relying on the Apex Court's ruling, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief if applicable.