1993 (10) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit for Felts, Bronze Metal Cloth, Wire Cloth, and Dandy Covers.
2. Interpretation of the term "input" under Rule 57A.
3. Relevance of Tariff Classification in determining Modvat eligibility.
4. Conflict in Tribunal decisions regarding Modvat eligibility.
5. Applicability of High Court judgments in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit for Felts, Bronze Metal Cloth, Wire Cloth, and Dandy Covers:
The appellants, M/s. Orient Paper Mills, claimed Modvat Credit for Felts, Bronze Metal Cloth, Wire Cloth, and Dandy Covers used in paper manufacturing. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela, denied the claim, considering these items as equipment/tools/appliances. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, upheld this decision. The Tribunal had to determine if these items qualify as "inputs" under Rule 57A and are eligible for Modvat Credit.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Input" under Rule 57A:
The appellants argued that the term "input" excludes only the listed items in the Explanation to Rule 57A, not their parts. They cited previous Tribunal decisions (Collector of Central Excise v. Emami Paper Mills Ltd. and Straw Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise) supporting this interpretation. The Tribunal had previously held that the exclusion under Rule 57A applies to complete machines, machinery, etc., not their parts. The items in question were classified under different Tariff Headings than those for machinery, supporting their eligibility for Modvat Credit.

3. Relevance of Tariff Classification in Determining Modvat Eligibility:
The appellants pointed out that the Calcutta High Court in Singh Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise endorsed the use of Tariff classification in interpreting expressions like machines and machinery. The Tribunal's previous decisions also relied on Tariff classification to determine the eligibility of items for Modvat Credit. The Department argued that the Tariff classification should not be used for interpreting Rule 57A, citing Tribunal decisions where goods used for machinery maintenance were not considered as used in the manufacture of final products.

4. Conflict in Tribunal Decisions Regarding Modvat Eligibility:
The West Regional Bench of the Tribunal differed from the views of the present Bench in the Straw Products and Emami Paper Mills cases, referring the matter to the President of the Tribunal for resolution by a larger Bench. The Departmental Representatives cited several Tribunal decisions supporting the denial of Modvat Credit for the items in question, arguing that these items are parts of machinery and not eligible for Modvat Credit.

5. Applicability of High Court Judgments in Similar Cases:
The appellants referred to the Calcutta High Court judgment in Singh Alloys, where items used in machinery were held eligible for Modvat Credit as they were classified as chemicals in the Tariff. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision supports using Tariff classification to interpret Rule 57A. The Tribunal also considered the Madras High Court judgment in Ponds (India) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, which aligned with their previous decisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and reviewing relevant decisions, upheld its previous stance that the items in question (Felts, Bronze Metal Cloth, Wire Cloth, and Dandy Covers) are eligible for Modvat Credit. The items are not complete machines or machinery but parts classified under different Tariff Headings. The Tribunal emphasized that the exclusion under Rule 57A applies to complete items, not their parts. The matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal for a larger Bench to resolve conflicting views, particularly in light of the West Regional Bench's differing opinion.