TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether kraft paper used for interleaving stainless steel strips and coils in the manufacturing process was an input used in relation to the manufacture of the final product for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; (ii) Whether such kraft paper could be treated as equipment or appliance and thus fall outside the category of inputs.
Issue (i): Whether kraft paper used for interleaving stainless steel strips and coils in the manufacturing process was an input used in relation to the manufacture of the final product for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: The paper was used within the factory during repeated coiling and recoiling operations to prevent direct contact, friction, defects, and corrosion, and to preserve the quality and brightness of the final products. It was therefore used in relation to the manufacture of the final product and did not fall within any exclusion in the explanation to Rule 57A.
Conclusion: The kraft paper was an input used in relation to the manufacture of the final product, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether such kraft paper could be treated as equipment or appliance and thus fall outside the category of inputs.
Analysis: The paper was consumed in the manufacturing process and was neither machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tool, nor appliance. The excluded categories refer to items not themselves consumed in manufacture, which did not describe the kraft paper used here.
Conclusion: The kraft paper could not be treated as equipment or appliance, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered in favour of the assessee, holding that the kraft paper qualified as an input under Rule 57A and did not fall within the exclusion for equipment or appliances.
Ratio Decidendi: Material used within the factory as part of the manufacturing process, and necessary to preserve the quality of the final product, qualifies as an input in relation to manufacture unless it is specifically excluded by the rule.
TaxTMI 
