9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellants in requisite proportion and are then grounded. This mixed grounded material is then placed in the fireclay crucibles which are put in the furnace at a very high temperature. After the completion of the reaction, they are taken out and allowed to be cooled. After cooling, the final product is taken out of the fireclay crucibles. As per the appellants, some of the crucibles get broken during this operations and have to be thrown as waste, whereas a good number of crucibles which remain intact after one operation may also be used during the next operation. 2. Vide their declaration 26-12-1991 filed under Rule 57G, the appellants claimed the benefit of the Modvat credit on these crucibles by treating the same as inputs us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larger Bench. 5. As regards the other decision reported in 1995 (61) ECR 250 (ERB), Shri Bagaria submits that the said decision was given prior to the various Larger Bench decisions given in the context of the Modvat credit, wherein the Exclusion Clause had been considered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and it has been held that only complete machinery and self-contained assemblies etc. are hit by the Exclusion Clause. He submits that in subsequent decisions, while considering the admissibility of Modvat credit in respect of crucibles, reference has been made to this Larger Bench decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) = 1996 (15) RLT 144 and in the case of Ramakrishna Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion Clause in Explanation to Rule 57A would not hit the same. Accordingly, the Modvat credit on the crucibles was allowed to the appellants in that case. Referring to the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner in his impugned Order, Shri Bagaria submits that there is no dispute as regards the use of the crucibles as containers. In view of his above submission, he contends that the Modvat credit on the said item be allowed following the Tribunal s latest decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra). 6. Countering the arguments, learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that the crucibles are definitely in the nature of apparatus or equipments as the same do not get consumed in one operation and are capable of being used repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are projecting pro and contra-view. Whereas the decisions referred to by the learned SDR as also the one brought to my notice by the learned Advocate, denying the benefit of the Modvat credit to the crucibles, are prior to the Larger Bench decisions in the cases of Union Carbide Industries and Ramakrishna Steel Industries, the subsequent decisions have held the crucibles to be not covered by the Exclusion Clause and hence to be an eligible input. 8. Relying upon the decision on the Larger Bench Judgment, in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1996 (16) RLT 712 (supra), to which I was a party, the matter was remanded for re-determination on the eligibility of crucibles to the Modvat credit as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that they are containers to hold molten metal. We have consulted the Second Edition of McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. We find that it is in the form of a Utensil, may be of larger size. It is not in the form of a machine/equimachine/equipment etc. which are covered by the exclusion clause in the explanation to Rule 57A. Having regard to this view, we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible to Graphite Crucibles also. 10. In the instant case, I find from the findings of the Assistant Commissioner that the use of the crucibles in the nature of containers has not been disputed by the Department. In this connection, the findings of the Assistant Commissioner are reproduced :- Findings :- I have carefully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is seen that crucibles have been held to be in the nature of equipments on the ground that they are capable of being used by the appellants more than once and the same do not help in processing the ingredients. In view of the undisputed fact that these crucibles are in the nature of containers/utensils and applying the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. referred to supra which is a latest Judgment on the disputed issue in regard to point of time, I hold that the same are not in the form of apparatus or equipment and as such, are not covered by the Exclusion Clause in the Explanation to Rule 57A. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
