9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to resist higher temperature. (No set-off taken on this item). (ii) Ordinary magnasite and high Alumina refractories. (iii) Fire clay refractories like B.P. sets, fire bricks, nozzle, laddle sleeves etc. In respect of (i), the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 was not availed of by the respondents. In respect of refractories at Sl. No. (ii) the benefit was availed of by the respondents for the reason that these were used in the laddle and furnace shell covering for protecting the original laddle and furnace lining and was used up after a few Heats and were required to be replaced by such fresh refractory material. In respect of (iii) also, the benefit of the Notification 201/79 was taken for the reason that fire clay refractories like B.P. sets, fire bricks, nozzle, laddle sleeves etc., were formed into a mould for filling the molten metal in the C.I. Ingot Moulds and used up and the runners and risers which are formed had to be taken out by breaking the refractory material. In the proceedings before the lower authority, the Assistant Collector held that the respondents were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 201/79. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said views have also been confirmed in the decision of Madras Tribunal in case of M/s. Premier Tyres Ltd., Alwaye v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. [1985 (22) E.L.T. 948 (Tribunal); 1986 ECR 80 (Cegat Madras)]. Hence the decision of the Collector (Appeals) regarding limitation is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The fire clay refractories like B.P. Sets, Fire Bricks, Nozzle, laddle sleeves which are stated to have been used for filling the molten metal in cast iron moulds, can by no stretch of imagination be considered to extent the benefit of unamended Notification No. 201/79 as in that case the machinery and equipments used in the manufacturing process also will be entitled for the benefit. The 'Inputs' legible for the benefit under Notification No. 201/79 should go directly or indirectly in the manufacturing process to form a part of the finished product. The Collector (Appeals), has failed to appreciate that the refractories, even if they have been used in the filling of molten metals in the C.I. moulds, they cannot be considered as inputs in terms of unamended Notification No. 201/79." 3. In respect of the benefit under the same notification, the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the benefit of concession was available to the extent of the .duty paid on any inputs falling under T.I. 68 and used in the manufacture of the finished excisable goods. He cited the case of M/s. Rockdril (India), Jodhpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1984 (17) E.L.T. 497]. In support of his this plea he brought to our notice the following observation of the Bench in this regard : "Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979, prior to its amendment on 28-2-1982 by Notification No. 105/79-C.E. contained no condition that Item 68 goods should be used as raw material and component parts. On the other hand,it gave the exemption in respect of any Tariff Item 68 goods which were used in the manufacture of other dutiable goods. There is, therefore, no substance in the argument that exemption was admissible only if the Tariff Item 68 goods become constituent part of other finished dutiable goods. In fact, diamond drill bits cannot be manufactured without the use of graphite rods/moulds. Besides, it is seen from the process of manufacture that after being used, the graphite mould is broken up and cannot be re-used. But even if it could be re-used or had some economic value, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of moulds in view of the wording of the notification as it stood before the amendment. The Collector (Appeals) has followed the rationale of this decision and allowed the appeal partially subject to the satisfaction that the refractories stated to have been used for moulds etc., have been so used. The learned SDR arguments that the scope of the notification should be restricted to only such inputs which go into the process of manufacture is not acceptable in view of the wording in the notification as it stood at the relevant time and also held by the Tribunal in the decision cited supra. The case cited by him in the case ofM/s. Vikrant Tyres does not advance his case as the Tribunal was not called upon in that case to interpret the scope of notification in the context of issues before us. The Tribunal in that case has held that the duty paid on the inputs will have to be apportioned between duty paid clearances and those under an exemption where the duty paid T.I. 68 inputs have been utilised partially for finished goods cleared on payment of duty and partially for those under an exemption. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rockdril (India), Jodhpur is in no way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
