1990 (8) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ollows :- The respondents herein manufacture rigid plastic laminates falling under T.I. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff and during the process of manufacture they use BOPP film (Biaxially Oriented Polypropelene film) falling under T.I. 15A(2) as separators. Sheets of BOPP cut to rectangular shape of suitable sizes are used to separate consecutive layers of rigid plastic laminates during the process of compression under heat and pressure. A particular film can be used repeatedly for a number of operations before being discarded. 3. The respondents were availing of proforma credit of duty paid on BOPP film and utilising the same to pay duty on the final product i.e. rigid plastic laminates. A show cause notice was issued to them on 25-6- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... always so. The Central Government has the power to specify the final product covered by the rule and the conditions regarding the tariff item and remission of duty being specifically mentioned, are adequate protections against misuse of the concession, any, for instance, by a claim for set off of excisable fuel used for the manufacture of a product specified under Rule 56A(1). In any view of the matter, the four conditions of Rule 56A were complied with in these cases. Even assuming that the word manufactured from was restrictive in scope, its amendment by in the manufacture of ...are used puts the matter beyond doubt. If the Central Government in its wisdom grants and exemption to specified materials used in the manufacture of a specif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal in the case of Seshasayee Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Madras - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 193 in which the Bench held that what is thought of in Rule 56A is only raw material and not any material. This decision which was rendered on 11-2-1985, was not brought to the notice of the lower appellate authority at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. However, there is a series of decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue of eligibility for proforma credit. In the case of CCE, Calcutta v. M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. - 1988 (2) SCALE 240 = 1989 (39) E.L.T. 169 (SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court held that nameplates put on fans have certain value and therefore the value added for accretion of nameplate was entitled to proforma credit in terms of Notif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X