1995 (8) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Modvat credit for grease proof paper.
2. Definition and scope of "input" under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Interpretation of the term "used in or in relation to the manufacture" under Rule 57A.
4. Applicability of previous case laws and judgments.
5. Determination of whether grease proof paper qualifies as an "appliance" or "equipment."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Modvat Credit for Grease Proof Paper:
The appeal challenges the order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, which denied Modvat credit for grease proof paper used in the manufacturing process of polyurethane foam. The Collector (Appeals) held that the grease proof paper is used merely to prevent sticking of the foam to the conveyor and is discarded as waste, thus not qualifying for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.

2. Definition and Scope of "Input" under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules:
The learned original authority and the lower appellate authority both concluded that the grease proof paper does not enter into the composition or form part of the final product. They argued that it does not meet the criteria of being "consumed" in the manufacturing process as stipulated under Rule 57A. However, the Tribunal noted that Rule 57A does not require inputs to be part of the final product or consumed in the manufacturing process, but rather used "in or in relation to" the manufacture.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Used in or in Relation to the Manufacture" under Rule 57A:
The Tribunal emphasized that the term "used in or in relation to the manufacture" should be given a broad interpretation. The grease proof paper is necessary to prevent the foam from sticking to the conveyor, which is a technical necessity in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal referenced previous rulings, including the Supreme Court's interpretation in the case of J.K. Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO, which supports a wide interpretation of the term.

4. Applicability of Previous Case Laws and Judgments:
The Tribunal reviewed several case laws cited by both the appellant and the respondent. The learned Consultant for the appellant cited various judgments to argue that the grease proof paper should qualify for Modvat credit. Conversely, the learned DR referenced the ruling in C.C.E. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., where the Tribunal had denied Modvat credit for interleaving kraft paper used to protect stainless steel from scratches. The Tribunal, however, found that the earlier view was not consistent with the broader interpretation of Rule 57A and the Supreme Court's rulings.

5. Determination of Whether Grease Proof Paper Qualifies as an "Appliance" or "Equipment":
The Tribunal analyzed whether grease proof paper could be classified as an "appliance" or "equipment" excluded under Rule 57A. The Tribunal concluded that grease proof paper does not function as an apparatus or equipment but rather as a barrier necessary for the manufacturing process. The Tribunal referred to similar cases, such as the use of BOPP films in lamination, where such materials were not considered appliances or equipment.

Conclusion:
After thorough consideration, the Tribunal held that grease proof paper qualifies for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. It is used "in or in relation to the manufacture" of polyurethane foam and does not fall under the excluded categories of machinery, equipment, apparatus, or appliances. The Tribunal thus allowed the appeal, granting Modvat credit for the grease proof paper.