9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from duty under Notification No. 178/77 in respect of cartons used by them for packing nylon and polyester yarn. Such a decision was passed by the Tribunal in the absence of the counsel of the respondent. An application for recalling of the order was filed as it was explained that the counsel handling the matter was prevented from attending the hearing as he was held up in another matter in the Delhi High Court. The application for such recall was dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable and not covered by the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Aggrieved with this order the respondent filed a Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court which was allowed vide decision reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472. The matter has been remanded to the Tribunal fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise v. Jayana Time Ind. (P) Limited reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 52. 3. Resisting the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Departmental Representative and the grounds taken in the Department's appeal, Shri Ravinder Narain, learned Counsel submits that nothing turns on the expression "input" used in the said Notification. The said expression, namely, input has been used in the Notification only as a form of convenient abbreviation to refer goods falling under Item 68 and used in the manufacture of excisable goods. There is no requirement in the aforesaid Notification that the benefit of exemption from duty would be available only if such goods are used as raw material or component part. He refers to the Supreme Court decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted "inputs" in the manufacture of the paper cleared in such form was eligible for the benefit of Notification 201/79 which was the successor to Notification 178/77 under consideration before us. It was held that use of paper core is necessary for rewinding of paper if it is delivered to customers in rolls and would come within the purview of expression "any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product" used in Section 2(f) of the Act. For the same reason, it was held that paper cores would be constituent part of paper and would thus fall within the term component parts used in the Notification insofar as manufacture of paper in reels is concerned. To similar effect is the other decision of the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion only required the use of the inputs (cones and cartons) in the manufacture of the (packed) yarn and there was no disqualifying condition that if such cartons or cones did not contribute to the duty incidence on the duty leviable on such yarn, the exemption will be inapplicable unlike the subsequent provision Rule 57A in respect of certain types of packaging materials. 5. The alternative contention raised by the Senior Departmental Representative that the benefit of exemption was only to be claimed at the time of assessment and not by way of a refund claim is totally unacceptable. It does not flow from the plain language of the Notification. The Tribunal decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent have clearly rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
