1993 (1) TMI 97 - HC - Central Excise

Court quashes order, grants refund for steel ingot inputs.

SINGH ALLOYS & STEEL LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the Assistant Collector's order and allowing the petitioner to claim a refund under Section 11B of ... Modvat Credit - 'Appliance' - Meaning - Writ jurisdiction Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Classification of dolopatch mix, Magnesite Peas, and ramming mass as inputs for steel ingots.3. Preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.4. Merits of the case concerning the classification of the items as inputs or excluded items.Summary:Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944The primary issue in this writ petition is the construction of Rule 57A, which allows for credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in the manufacture of final products. The explanation to Rule 57A defines 'inputs' and lists exceptions, such as machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools, or appliances used for producing or processing goods.Issue 2: Classification of Dolopatch Mix, Magnesite Peas, and Ramming MassThe petitioner argued that dolopatch mix, Magnesite Peas, and ramming mass are inputs for steel ingots. These items are used in the furnace to prevent leakage and reduce erosion, losing their identity and being consumed in the process. The Assistant Collector initially denied modvat credit, but the Collector of Central Excise later allowed it. However, subsequent orders again disallowed the credit, leading to this writ petition.Issue 3: Preliminary Objection Regarding Alternative RemedyThe respondents contended that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court rejected this objection, citing reasons such as the prolonged pendency of the writ application, the predetermined outcome by the Tribunal, and the lack of disputed facts. The court emphasized its duty to resolve the issue to prevent arbitrary assessments.Issue 4: Merits of the CaseThe court examined whether the items in question are inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A. The Tribunal had previously ruled that these items were part of the machinery and thus excluded from the definition of inputs. However, the court disagreed, stating that the items are chemicals and do not fall within the dictionary meaning of machines, machinery, or appliances. The court held that the items are used in relation to the manufacture of steel ingots and are therefore inputs. The argument that steel ingots could be manufactured without these items was deemed immaterial, as the definition of inputs depends on what is actually used.ConclusionThe court quashed the impugned order of the Assistant Collector, discharged the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, and allowed the petitioner to claim a refund under Section 11B of the Act. The application for a refund must be disposed of within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.