2002 (9) TMI 641 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Liability to Central Excise duty in respect of tools, cutters, and hobs manufactured by M/s. Gajra Gears Ltd. and sent outside for tin coating under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability to Central Excise duty for tools sent for tin coating under Rule 57F(4)
The issue in these appeals pertained to the liability of Central Excise duty for tools, cutters, and hobs manufactured by M/s. Gajra Gears Ltd. and sent outside for tin coating under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Appellant argued that the tools had already lost their identity as inputs or partially processed inputs, and hence, Rule 57F was not applicable. Furthermore, it was contended that the tools had already attained the essential characteristics as tools and were not in the nature of intermediate goods. The Appellant also claimed that the tools were not exempted under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. as they were cleared outside the factory premises. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that Rule 57F(4) allowed the removal of inputs for various purposes, including refining or reconditioning, and that the tools were consumed within the factory for the manufacture of final products, justifying their claim for exemption under the notification.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 57F(4) and applicability
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57F(4) at the relevant time, which authorized the manufacturer to remove inputs for specific purposes, including refining or reconditioning, and return them for further use in the manufacture of final products. It was observed that the tools manufactured by the Respondent were sent for tin coating to their job workers, which was permissible under Rule 57F(4). The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that since the tools had already attained essential characteristics, they could not be sent for further processing under Rule 57F(4). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the removal of tools for extending their life period fell within the purview of Rule 57F(4). Moreover, it was noted that the tools were indeed used by the Respondent in the manufacture of final products, thereby justifying their non-liable status for excise duty at the time of removal for tin coating.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, ruling that as the removal of the tools for tin coating was covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, no duty of excise was payable by the Respondent at the time of such removal. This comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the judgment highlights the interpretation of relevant rules and the application of exemptions, resulting in the decision in favor of the Respondent.