TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard, especially with regard to the use of the articles in question. The matter was accordingly relisted and both sides heard. 2. Collector (Appeals) has held that both the goods would not be inputs, since they were "identifiable with the equipment" and were falling within the scope of the exclusion clause contained in the Explanation to Rule 57H. The advocate for the appellant explain that the emery cloth belt comprised a closed book of fabric about 10 cms. wide and about 50 cms. diameter, coated with abrasive material on the outside. The belt was put to use by being spread out over rollers, such rollers revolving at high speed. 3. It would be clear from this Explanation that the belt is designed for use and is actually us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the required abrasive effect. He relied upon the decision of the East Regional Bench in C.C.E. v. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 635 which has held that Aloxide paper used to polish plywood did not fall within the excluded category of [input]. He pointed out that in the decision in Jayashree Timber Products v. CCE - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 235 the Tribunal had taken the same view. He contends that in the alternative in any event the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench by the West Regional Bench in Delta Panel Products v. CCE. 5. The Bench had referred the matter to Larger Bench in Delta Panel Products P. Ltd. v. CCE and because different views had been taken in the matter the South Regional Bench in CCE v. Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conclusion that the paper is used not independently but in conjunction with the machine. 8. That is not true of the paper in the present case. Here there is no dispute that the paper is used by itself being held in the hand and no other machine or machinery is required for it to be used. These earlier decisions therefore are not relevant for deciding the eligibility of this item to be considered an input or not. 9. It is contented by the advocate for the appellant that sand paper is not to be considered as a tool for the reason that it is consumed and used and since it is not classified as a tool in the tariff in Chapter 82 it cannot be considered as a tool. When asked to what is "consumable" the advocate for the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot form part of the machine. 10. I am therefore unable to subscribe to this view merely because frequent replacement is needed a particular item cannot be a part of the machine. There are many goods which are parts of machines by their very nature e.g. widths, blades or bands for cutting tools etc. It cannot be disputed that drill bits are parts of drilling machine and blades and paints because of their nature these parts cannot be used for periods which are far shorter than the use to the machine to which they are used for the machines of which they are a part are used. It is this because of which they cease to be parts of machines? The answer obviously is in the negative. Other examples would be electrodes of welding machines, l....