9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7A or the same is excluded by the Exclusion Clause of the said Rule. 3. The issue has been a subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 635 (Tribunal) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Jayshree Timber Product reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 329, it was held that Aloxide coated paper is neither tool nor any other item listed in the Exclusion Clause in the Explanation to Rule 57A. It was also observed in these two Judgments that when the coated paper is not tool or any other excluded item, the manner of its use and the result of its functioning, do not rule out the benefit of the Modvat credit. A contrary view was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nel Products v. Collector of Central Excise case is not available as yet. 6. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent firms, M/s. Assam Timber products, M/s. Wood Craft Products Ltd. and Shri P.K. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent firm, M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd. He submitted that the case has been referred to the Larger Bench on the issue involved, but subsequently, another Larger Bench decision considering the scope of the Exclusion Clause under Rule 57A in the case of Union Carbide v. Collector reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) = 1996 (15) RLT 144, has taken the view that parts of the excluded items are not covered by the Exclusion Clause and as such, not excluded from the purview of the Modvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hold that by analogy or corollary, parts and/or accessories of machines would stand excluded and amount to re-reading the provision by supplying words which are missing therein, which is not permissible in the context. However, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench because of the contra-decision in the case of Indian Plywood Manufacturing Company Ltd. Though the decision of the Larger Bench in Delta Panel Products Pvt. Ltd. is not available, but I find that the scope of the Exclusion Clause under Rule 57A was considered by another Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide (I) Ltd. v. Collector. In the said judgment, paras 24 and 25 deal with the said aspect. After taking note of the expressions used in the Exclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excluded by virtue of exclusion Clause (i) and Modvat benefit is extended to such spare parts, the provision is likely to be misused and all the parts of a machine may be purchased and brought to the factory and the parts assembled to become a full machine to be used in the manufacture of final product and that could adversely affect the Revenue. This apprehension is not justified. Spares or parts concerned in these appeals are to replace worn-out parts or parts which require replacement. In the example cited, credit will be taken of the duty paid on the parts of the machine and used to pay duty on the machine manufactured out of the parts but machine as input is excluded by Clause (i). If, however, the parts are brought in C.K.D. condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
