1990 (2) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order allowing MODVAT credit for BOPP films used in manufacturing laminates, objection by the department on the ground that films act as separators and not inputs, confirmation of demands by Assistant Collector, appeal before Collector (Appeals) on grounds of time bar and merits, arguments regarding the use of films in manufacturing process, interpretation of Rule 57A, determination of whether films qualify as appliances or apparatus, examination of scientific and technical definitions of appliances, equipment, and apparatus, consideration of the nature of BOPP films before and after use in manufacturing process, evaluation of eligibility for MODVAT credit under Rule 57A, comparison with Rule 56A requirements, decision on the eligibility of BOPP films for MODVAT credit.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowing MODVAT credit for BOPP films used in manufacturing laminates. The department objected to the credit, arguing that the films acted as separators and did not qualify as inputs in the manufacturing process. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demands, ordering the recovery of wrongly availed credits. The appeal before the Collector (Appeals) raised issues of time bar and merits, with the department contending that the films were not eligible for MODVAT credit. The department's argument focused on the films' role as separators in the manufacturing process, claiming they were appliances or apparatus excluded from MODVAT credit under Rule 57A.

During the proceedings, the department explained the manufacturing process and the use of films, highlighting their function as a separating medium between layers during pressing. The department conceded that some demands were time-barred but maintained that the films should be considered appliances or apparatus, not eligible for MODVAT credit. The Tribunal examined the definitions of appliances, equipment, and apparatus, concluding that BOPP films did not fit these categories. The Tribunal observed that the films were partly consumed in the manufacturing process, losing their identity, and were essential for lamination. The Tribunal rejected the department's challenge to the eligibility of the films for MODVAT credit, noting that the Collector (Appeals) had already determined them as inputs for lamination under Rule 56A. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals), dismissing the department's appeal and affirming the eligibility of BOPP films for MODVAT credit under Rule 57A.