9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 7014.00 2. Super Refractory (Fired) Sub-heading 6901.00 3. Super Refractory (Cement) Sub-heading 3816.00 The department took the view that the above mentioned materials were not inputs used in the manufacture of final product i.e. carbon black and were hit by the exclusion clause under Rule 57A and therefore no MODVAT was admissible w.r.t. the same. 3. It was his submission that the authorities below have erred in arriving at the above finding. 4. In this connection he would like to draw attention to the flow chart of the process of manufacture filed by them as Annexure I. 5. It was their contention that the carbon black is manufactured out of the feed stock derived from petroleum. It can be seen from the flow chart that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re has the capacity to resist and withstand high temperature. In support of their contention that they are required to be considered as inputs used in the manufacture and cannot be considered as a part of the furnace or as an equipment are not hit by the exclusion clause, he would like to rely on the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Singh Alloys and Steel Ltd. reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594. It was also his submission that the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Singh Alloys has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of AB Tools and the larger bench decision in this aspect has been reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 776. 9. Their lordships observations in this connection in para 7 of their order is relevant in as much a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely carbon black in their case and it should be held that it was not hit by the exclusion clause although it was classifiable under a different chapter and heading namely 6901.00. 13. In this connection he would however, like to mention that there is a Tribunal order in the case of Raipur Alloys Steel Ltd. [1995 (78) E.L.T. 441] in which the majority of opinion is against him on the question of refractory bricks; But it was his submission that it is the minority view which was correct and therefore this view may be taken into consideration. The majority view has erred in distinguishing it from the case of Singh Alloys on one hand and on the other hand denying the benefit in spite of their holding that these were parts of the furnace beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts. This Rule 57Q has an explanation which includes in the definition of capital goods (a) machines, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products; (b) components, spare parts and accessories of the aforesaid machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for aforesaid purpose . Clause (a) virtually a reproduction of the main principal clause given in 57A. Further more, under the explanation the clause (d) has a sub-clause (x) which specifically refers to refractories falling within Chapter 69". It was his contention that if refractory bricks were classifiable as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as the question of super refractory bricks (Fired) are concerned the Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the order of the tribunal in the case of Raipur Alloy Steel Ltd. (Supra). He has also very fairly stated that the majority view is against him. His argument that the minority view should be accepted and followed is however, not acceptable because the Tribunal s order is the order of the majority, and it is this majority view, being Tribunal s final order which is required to be followed . 24. He has taken the argument that the minority view is based on the Calcutta High Court judgment and the majority has erred in distinguishing it is not acceptable because the majority view not only takes note of the Calcutta High Court judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely the glass bags are concerned, they were admittedly used for filtration and even if they were not an integral part of the filter press they were admittedly used alongwith it and could only be considered as ancilliary to it. No technical literature or any other write-up or material has been filed in this regard but from the submissions made before this bench it is apparent that it will be hit by exclusion clause in view of the above position. 27. Summing up, the super refractory (cement) is required to be allowed the benefit of MODVAT whereas the remaining two items namely super refractory bricks (Fired) and the fibre glass filter bags are not eligible for the benefit of MODVAT. 28. In view of the above position the order of the Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
