Whether "Consumables" are "Raw Material"?

Appellant-company is 100% export oriented undertaking (in short 'EOU') who claimed partial exemption from duty in terms of Notification NO.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 in respect of goods sold in Domestic Tariff Area (in short 'DTA'), which stipulated conditions that the goods have been manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India. According to the company it procured the raw materials from domestic manufacturers in India and also imported (1) Carboxymethyle Cellulose which is used for sizing of single yarn to give strength to the yarn during weaving after which the woven towels are washed to remove completely the sizing materials and (2) Ultra fresh N.M. which is used for anti bacteria and anti fungus treatment of terry towels. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the sizing materials imported by the company is raw material and as imported raw material has been used, the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE is not available.

After considering the rival submissions, CEGAT has also rejected the appellant contention and upheld the demand.

Therefore, the question raised before the honorable Supreme Court what is the scope of the term "Raw Material" and whether this term includes "Consumables also".

Honorable Supreme Court has observed the followings:

- The expression "raw material" is not a defined term.

- The meaning has to be given in the ordinary well accepted connotation in the common parlance of those who deal with the matter. In Ballarpur's case (supra) it was inter alia observed as follows:

"14. The ingredients used in the chemical technology of manufacture of any end product might comprise, amongst others, of those which may retain their dominant individual identity and character throughout the process and also in the end product; those which, as a result of interaction with other chemicals or ingredients might themselves undergo chemical or qualitative changes and in such altered form find themselves in the end product; those which, like catalytic agents, while influencing and accelerating the chemical reactions, however, may themselves remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain independent of and outside the end products and those, as here, which might be burnt up or consumed in the chemical reactions.  The question in the present case is whether the ingredients of the last mentioned class qualify themselves as and are eligible to be called "raw material" for the end product. One of the valid tests, in our opinion, could be that the ingredient should be so essential from the chemical processes culminating in the emergence of the desired end product, that having regard to its importance in and indispensability for the process, it could be said that its very consumption on burning up is its quality and value as raw material. In such a case, the relevant test is not its absence in the end product, but the dependence of the end product for its essential presence at the delivery end of the process. The ingredient goes into the making of the end product in the sense that without its absence the presence of the end product, as such, is rendered impossible. This quality should coalesce with the requirement that its utilization is in the manufacturing process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus." 

Finally, Supreme Court has held that:

In the cases at hand "consumable" are treated differently from "raw materials".    

(For full text of judgment - please see 2007 -TMI - 2211 - Supreme Court of India)