9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. 2. The question for decision in this case relates to Notification No. 178/77 and the scope of the word inputs appearing therein in relation to Wooden Drums used in the manufacture of Electric Wires and Cables. 3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Electric Wires and Cables which fall under Tariff Item No. 33-B of the First Schedule to the Act. On 11th July, 1977, the Central Excise Divisional Officer i.e. Assistant Collector, Jabalpur asked the appellant to show cause why the exemption under Notification No. 178/77, dated 18-6-1977 claimed in their Classification List dated. 18-6-1977 in respect of Wooden Drums, called inputs assessable under T.I. No. 68 and purchased from outside, should not be approved wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of electric wires and cables but facilitates the process and since it is discarded and becomes waste after use of the wires and cables, it cannot be called an integral part because it has not gone into their manufacture. The Appellate Collector upheld the order of the Assistant Collector as correct in law. 5. The grounds for the present appeal are that the Appellate Collector failed to appreciate all the facts and circumstances of the case. He grossly erred in interpreting the said notification by holding that the wooden drums were not inputs and are not used in the manufacture of wires and cables but merely facilitate the process. He failed to realise that the drums are a necessary part of the cable without which they cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f can be given for duty paid drums cleared with cables, In Ballarpur Industries [1983 (2) ETR page 323] it was held that all excisable goods used in the manufacture will be treated as inputs. The words in the manufacture of have been interpreted in the case of J.K. Cotton v. S.T.O. of (16) S. T.C. page 563 at page 569. On the basis of these decisions, the stand taken by the lower authorities could not be justified. 7. The learned SDR, Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, sought a clarification from Counsel whether the exemption was being claimed only on the drums cleared along with cables or on other drums used for the manufacture. It was confirmed that the exemption was in respect of the former only. Thereupon, Shri Lakshmikumaran stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
