1998 (1) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules regarding the removal of inputs for manufacturing final products.
- Determination of whether Di-Ethyl-Phthalate is an input or a final product for the manufacturer.
- Analysis of the process of manufacturing Di-Ethyl-Phthalate and the role of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol in the production.
- Consideration of the classification list and price-list filed by the manufacturer for Di-Ethyl-Phthalate.
- Examination of the application of Rule 57F(2) in the context of the case and the clearance of Di-Ethyl-Phthalate on payment of duty to another factory.
- Assessment of whether the Denatured Alcohol received from another factory qualifies as an intermediate product for the manufacturer.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The case revolved around the permission sought by the Respondents to remove Di-Ethyl-Phthalate as an input for manufacturing Denatured Ethyl Alcohol at another factory and then using the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol as a raw material for manufacturing Di-Ethyl-Phthalate. The Asstt. Commissioner initially rejected the application, stating that such manufacturing did not fall under Rule 57F(2). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed and allowed the application based on the reasoning that Di-Ethyl-Phthalate was cleared for the manufacture of intermediate products necessary for the final product.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of the manufacturing process of Di-Ethyl-Phthalate. It was established that Di-Ethyl-Phthalate itself was the final product for the Respondents and not merely an input. The process involved reacting Denatured Ethyl Alcohol with Phthalic Anhydride, with the basic inputs being Phthalic Anhydride and Ethyl Alcohol. The Denatured Ethyl Alcohol received from another factory was considered the input material for manufacturing Di-Ethyl-Phthalate, as evidenced by the classification list and price-list filed by the Respondents.

The Tribunal further noted that the application of Rule 57F(2) was not suitable in this case, especially considering that the Respondents were clearing Di-Ethyl-Phthalate to another factory on duty payment. This action contradicted the provisions of the rule. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Denatured Alcohol received should be treated as an intermediate product, and the Respondents could only seek duty credit on such products, which were duty-exempt.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Asstt. Commissioner, ruling that the Respondents' application to remove Di-Ethyl-Phthalate under Rule 57F(2) was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.