1997 (1) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of benefit of captive consumption under proviso to Rules 9(1) and Rule 49(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment revolved around the disallowance of the benefit of captive consumption under the proviso to Rules 9(1) and Rule 49(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) had disallowed the benefit on the basis that HDPE fabrics arose in the process of manufacturing HDPE tapes to HDPE sacks, leading to a classification issue. The appellants, manufacturers of HDPE sacks, argued that HDPE tapes and HDPE sacks were classifiable under the same Tariff Heading, T.I. 68, during the material period. The appellants contended that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) should be available to them as per the specified conditions.

The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the provisions stipulated in Rules 9(1) and 49(4), emphasizing that the benefit should be available if the goods are specified by the Central Government, and if the commodity was classifiable under the same Item No. in the Tariff as it stood before the new Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Citing a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Auroplast (India) Ltd., the Counsel argued that the conditions for availing the benefit were met as HDPE tapes were utilized in the manufacture of HDPE sacks under the proviso to Rule 9. The Tribunal's decision in the Auroplast case was crucial in establishing that the benefit could be extended to HDPE sacks manufactured from HDPE tapes.

On the other hand, the learned JDR representing the Department reiterated the position that HDPE fabrics were not classifiable under the same Tariff Item as HDPE tapes and sacks, supporting the denial of the benefit by the lower authorities. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and referring to previous decisions, concluded that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) could indeed be extended to the appellants. The Tribunal relied on its previous rulings in the Auroplast case and another case involving M/s. Primo Pick N Pick (P) Ltd. to support its decision.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) would be admissible to the appellants. The judgment clarified that the decision applied specifically to M/s. Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. and directed that any consequential relief should be granted to the appellants in accordance with the law.