9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Question involved in the present matter is whether the product compendiously described as refractory containers comprising (1) Pillars (2) Bases (3) Setting and (4) Bats are entitled for benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. These refractories containers are utilised for the purpose of setting the raw tiles arranged in a particular m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri M. Venkataraman points out that the finding of the lower authorities below that refractory containers are either appliances or equipment is not correct. It is input indeed not falling under any of the specified category of the excluded inputs. He draws support from Calcutta High Court s judgment in the case of Singh Alloys regarding the function of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refractory container by itself. In fact, he points out, refractory container is a name given by the appellant to these, otherwise these separate parts, and it is not a container as is normally understood in a common parlance. By themselves these containers cannot contain anything. He therefore submits that these refractory containers cannot therefore be described as inputs within the excluded c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sangia submits that the appellant themselves had described the goods as refractory container. It is in the form of Pillars, Bases, Settings and Bats only to enable the tiles to get the desired heat from all the sides; otherwise it has the function of the container and container would certainly perform the function of a containing the raw tiles. Without the help of refractory container the raw ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the manufacturer. By no means, these four parts can be considered as a container and therefore it is neither equipment nor the appliances. Therefore we are of the view that benefit of Notification No. 217/86 has not been correctly denied to the appellant. Hence we allow the appeal with the consequential relief to the appellant while we set aside the impugned order. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
