9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Bench held the issue on merits against the applicants but allowed their appeal on the ground of time bar of the demand. The department have not filed any Cross Objection to the application moved by the assessee. Hence we are to confine ourselves to the questions proposed by the applicants M/s. Apar Ltd. 3. The facts of the case are that the applicants are manufacturing electric lighting bulbs. They bring in various inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and take MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on these inputs as per the declaration filed by them in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Objection was taken with regard to the claim of the applicants in regard to certain inputs alleging that they cannot come within the purview of the eligible inputs under Rule 57A and hence adjudication was done by the Collector, wherein the Collector confirmed the demand for reversal of MODVAT Credit in respect of those inputs. On an appeal filed by the applicants, this Bench went into the merits of the claim of the applicants in the case of each input and held on merits only in the case of molywire against the applicants observing that it can be regarded as a mechanica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It has to be construed as a component used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, viewed in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in Eastend Paper Industries -1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC) and Ballarpur Paper Industries - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 804 (SC). Hence there appears to be an error in appreciating the legal provisions in construing the exclusion clause of Rule 75A. (ii) This Bench, while taking into account, the Mcgraw Hill Dictionary meaning of Mandrel for treating Molywire used as mandrel as an appliance, has not taken into account the meaning given the appliance in the same dictionary. Viewed in the context of definition of appliance given in the same dictionary, Molywire cannot be construed to be an electrical appliance for performing any specified task. It is only a wire, used as a core for coiling tungsten wires in the process of manufacture of electric lighting bulb. (iii) While the allegation by the lower authorities was that Molywire is a tool, the Tribunal gave an adverse finding against the applicant, holding it as an appliance . It is not open for the Tribunal to treat both terms as synonymous and bring out a new allegation, which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC) wherein that court upheld the eligibility of set off benefit provided under Notification No. 201/79 only in respect of paper core going as a component in the case of paper packed in the form of reams but not in the case of paper cleared in the form of sheets. Hence, the arguments of the Ld. advocate that usage of the item cannot be considered, do not appear to find favour with the Apex Court in the above case. 6.1 After considering the above arguments, we find that the facts are not disputed. Molywire is used as a core (mandrel) for coiling tungsten wire to make filament and Molywire is removed by dipping the coil in acid bath. Its function is only limited to usage as a core, for winding tungsten wire to obtain tungsten filament , which only goes as a component in the electric lighting bulb. We, no doubt, agree that under Rule 57A, physical presence of the item used as input, in the final product is not envisaged. An input is one which is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. We would have allowed MODVAT benefit for Molywire, if there had been no exclusion clause denying MODVAT benefit to certain categories of inputs used in or in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations of the Supreme Court are extracted below :- usage of paper core is necessary for rewinding the paper, if it is delivered to the consumer in rolls and would come within the purview of the expression any process incidental or ancilary to the completion of the manufactured product" used in definition of the term manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Act and for the same reason, paper core would also be a constituent part of paper and would thus fall within the term component part used in the Notification, in so far as manufacture of paper in rolls is concerned. Paper core, however, cannot be said to be used in the manufacture of paper in sheets as component part." (Emphasis supplied). 6.3 The above decision in Star Paper Mills case is also in the context of Notification No. 201/79, where the Apex Court went into the question of usage of paper core used in or in relation to the manufacture of paper marketed in various forms and held it as a component, only when such a core is physically present as a packing component of a paper roll marketed as such, but held that it is not a component when paper is marketed in reams or sheets. Hence we feel that usage of any item claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
