9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983 for recovery of duty equivalent to Proforma Credit availed on the above items for the period from 28-2-1982 to 31-10-1982 on the same grounds. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ambala, vide his Order-in-Original No. 53-SE/86, dated 27-6-1986, held that the aforesaid inputs were essential raw materials for the manufacture of paper and paper board and were entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E. Accordingly, he vacated the show cause notice dated 18.1.1983 and allowed the Proforma Credit. The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reviewed the order of the Assistant Collector under Section 35-E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and passed an order for filing an application to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi under Section 35-E(4) of the Act ibid. On an application filed by the Department under the aforesaid Section, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), vide the impugned order, set aside the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for re-adjudication after taking into consideration all the facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Acetate Yarn/Staple Fibre/Tow. The Tribunal held that there was nothing in the notification to hold that the inputs falling under Tariff Item 68 should form an integral part of the finished products. There was also no materials before the Tribunal to show that the Cellulose Acetate which arose as an intermediate product was cleared as such from the appellants' factory. In the circumstances, the Tribunal could not subscribe to the view that the appellants therein did not use acetal dehyde and acetic acid falling under Tariff Item 68 in the manufacture of Acetate Yarn/Staple Fibre/Tow. In that case the Tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 as amended should be extended to the Acetate Yarn/Staple Fibre/Tow for the manufacture of which the appellants therein used acetal dehyde and acetic acid falling under Tariff Item 68 as starting raw materials, irrespective of the fact that the continuous process of manufacture some other intermediate products arose which were not cleared as such from the factory, but were converted into the final finished product. Shri Sreedharan also relied on this 11 Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the cashew shells had been used as fuel in the kiln and not as raw material in the manufacture of goods. Consumption must be in the manufacture as raw material or of other components which go into the making of the end product to come within the mischief of that section. Since cashew shells did not tend to the making of the end product, but was used for ancillary purposes like fuel in the process of the manufacture, the same did not fall within Section 5-A(l)(a) of the Act ibid. 4. We have considered the records of the case and the arguments of both sides. The substantive portion of the Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4.6.1979 is reproduced below :- * * ** ** ** This notification was amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982. The amended version of the notification is as follows : * * ** &emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of vegetable product. After emergence of vegetable product the catalyst is not present in the final product. Catalyst remains as is it and it can be reused. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that the catalyst was not raw material. The facts in those two cases are, therefore, distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The facts of the case decided by the Supreme Court (supra) are also clearly distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as the cashew shells were used as fuel in that case and not as a raw material in the manufacture of finished goods. The Supreme Court judgment relied on by the learned DR is not, therefore, applicable to the present case. 7. In paragraph 4 & 5 of the decision, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 163 (Tribunal) - Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, the Tribunal has observed as follows :- "4. In order dated 31.3.1984 in appeal No. ED(MAS) 368/83 in the case of Sandur Manganese and iron Ores Ltd. Yeswantnagar v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, this Bench has already held that the term "raw material" has to be interpreted in the circumstances of each case in the absence of any acceptable or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
