1998 (8) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether refractory containers comprising pillars, bases, setting, and bats are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case is whether the product described as refractory containers falls under the excluded category of inputs as mentioned in Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The lower authority held that these containers are covered by the excluded category of 'appliances and equipment,' thus denying the benefit of the notification to the appellant. The appellant, represented by Shri M. Venkataraman, argued that refractory containers do not fall under the category of appliances or equipment. He relied on a judgment from the Calcutta High Court to support his argument. Venkataraman contended that refractory containers do not draw energy or produce any work or result, and they do not perform a complete function. He emphasized that these containers are merely separate parts assembled for stacking raw tiles and should be considered inputs entitled to the notification's benefit.

The JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia, opposed this argument, stating that the refractory containers function as containers for raw tiles, enabling the manufacturing process of glazed tiles. He argued that without these containers, the raw tiles could not be stacked or baked properly. However, upon careful consideration of both sides' arguments, the Tribunal observed that the refractory containers, comprising separate parts like pillars and bases, do not function as containers by themselves. These parts are consumed during the baking process and are akin to raw tiles in terms of being manufacturing inputs. The Tribunal concluded that the containers do not qualify as equipment or appliances and are therefore entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the lower authority's decision, granting the appellant the consequential relief.