9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of filling and sealing machines (F.S. machines) and also whether the cost of flexible plastic films/poly paper was eligible for Modvat credit as an input. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Collector v. Rash Extrusions Technic reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 367 and other decisions and on an analysis of the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal held that the materials used for testing fully finished machines cannot be considered as materials used "in or in relation to" the manufacture of the finished product. The Tribunal also held that from a perusal of the Scheme which excludes manufacture from the coverage of inputs for the purposes of credit of duty, the order passed by the lower authorities canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise his commercial/technical judgment on where marketable commodity in the form of a notional machine had come into existence. 3. In a further written memo submitted by the counsel for the applicant on 24-4-1996 applicants have stated that there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal on the question as to whether the materials that are used for testing machines are to be considered as inputs for purposes of allowing Modvat credit. Reference is made in this connection to a decision of Western Bench of CEGAT wherein it is claimed that the Tribunal had held that materials used in carrying out tests are in the category of inputs and entitled to Modvat credit. No copy of the said decision was however placed before us for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rise to a question of law for being referred to the High Court under Section 35G(1) of the Act. Opposing the application D.R. Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva contended that the question as to what constitutes an input for purposes of Rule 57A was primarily a question of fact and would not give rise to a question of law warranting reference to the High Court. He contended that the Tribunal had by its impugned order correctly found that the items used for testing a machine which has already been manufactured would not be eligible for purposes of claiming credit under Rule 57A and there was no question of law involved meriting reference under Section 35G(1). 4A. We have considered the submissions. In the case under consideration it is seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries also is clearly distinguishable on the facts of that case since the X-ray films were used for ensuring the requirements of the buyer. In the same order the Tribunal had observed that laboratory chemicals brought in use in R & D laborators cannot be treated on the same footing. In the case under discussion input under discussion was not different from laboratory chemicals used for R & D purposes. The fact that the machine manufactured were meant to answer the specifications of the buyer does not detract from the fact that the input used for testing was of the type used for R & D purposes. 6. In the above view of the matter we are not satisfied that any question of law has been raised warranting reference to the High Court under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
