1985 (2) TMI 188 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal for grant of proforma credit facility for three disallowed items.
2. Appeal against the order disallowing credit for other items.
3. Interpretation of the term "raw material" for excise duty purposes.
4. Validity of the Collector's order for payment recovery.

Analysis:
1. The appellants sought proforma credit facility for three disallowed items and appealed against the Collector's order disallowing credit for other items. The Tribunal noted that both appeals arose from a single order by the Superintendent and decided to hear them together.

2. The Superintendent disallowed credit for three items but allowed it for others. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the disallowance for the three items and directed the mills to repay the wrongly taken credit. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal against both orders.

3. The appellants argued that all items were raw materials for paper manufacture, citing various court decisions. The Tribunal considered the nature and use of each item to determine if they qualified as raw materials. Items like Ferric Alum, Non-ferric Alum, Rosin, and Depsanil 'V' were deemed raw materials, while chemicals like Alfloc 11, Alfloc 31, and Hydrazine Hydrate were considered maintenance chemicals not directly used in manufacturing paper.

4. The Tribunal analyzed each item's role in paper manufacturing to decide if they qualified for excise duty benefits. Items like Anthraquinone, Sulphamic Acid, and Acetic Acid were considered essential chemicals for pulp processing and entitled to benefits. However, chemicals like burnt lime were deemed not raw materials for paper manufacture.

5. The Tribunal concluded that out of the 13 items, only specific ones were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 201/79. The Collector's order for payment recovery was deemed valid as per the provisions of the Act.

6. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for nine items but dismissed the appeal for the three items not considered raw materials for paper manufacture. The judgment clarified the interpretation of "raw material" and upheld the Collector's order for payment recovery, maintaining the legal validity of the decision.