TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g materials : - 1. Glass Fibre Filter Bags/Fibre Glass Dust Filter bags. Sub-heading 7014.00 2.  Super Refractory (Fired) Sub-heading 6901.00 3.  Super Refractory (Cement) Sub-heading 3816.00 The department took the view that the above mentioned materials were not inputs used in the manufacture of final product i.e. carbon black and were hit by the exclusion clause under Rule 57A and therefore no MODVAT was admissible w.r.t. the same. 3. It was his submission that the authorities below have erred in arriving at the above finding. 4. In this connection he would like to draw attention to the flow chart of the process of manufacture filed by them as Annexure I. 5. It was their contention that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re actually in the nature of or analogous to the ramming mass and are made of burnt magnesite which is actually magnesium oxide and therefore has the capacity to resist and withstand high temperature. In support of their contention that they are required to be considered as inputs used in the manufacture and cannot be considered as a part of the furnace or as an equipment are not hit by the exclusion clause, he would like to rely on the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Singh Alloys and Steel Ltd. reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594. It was also his submission that the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Singh Alloys has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of AB Tools and the larger bench decision in this aspect has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks. 12.  It was his submission that in view of this technical write up which should also be held as an input used in the manufacture of the final product namely carbon black in their case and it should be held that it was not hit by the exclusion clause although it was classifiable under a different chapter and heading namely 6901.00. 13. In this connection he would however, like to mention that there is a Tribunal order in the case of Raipur Alloys Steel Ltd. [1995 (78) E.L.T. 441] in which the majority of opinion is against him on the question of refractory bricks; But it was his submission that it is the minority view which was correct and therefore this view may be taken into consideration. The majority view has erred in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 1-3-1994 and this rule allows the benefit of MODVAT even in the case of credit of duty paid on capital goods used by the manufacturer in the factory for the production of specified final products. This Rule 57Q has an explanation which includes in the definition of capital goods "(a) machines, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products; (b) components, spare parts and accessories of the aforesaid machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for aforesaid purpose". Clause (a) virtually a reproduction of the main principal clause given in 57A. Further more, under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel's arguments that this item is covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Singh Alloys (supra) which has been followed in the case of AB Tools also (supra) is evidently correct. 23. Insofar as the question of super refractory bricks (Fired) are concerned the Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the order of the tribunal in the case of Raipur Alloy Steel Ltd. (Supra). He has also very fairly stated that the majority view is against him. His argument that the minority view should be accepted and followed is however, not acceptable because the Tribunal's order is the order of the majority, and it is this majority view, being Tribunal's final order which is required to be followed . 24. H....