TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Evaporation Boats on the ground that the function of Evaporation Boats is similar to refractory goods used to provide protective lining against high temperatures and chemical reactions. The Evaporation Boats were, according to the lower authorities, in the nature of appliances/equipment. 2. We have heard Shri R. Nambirajan, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR for the respondent Collector. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were inter alia engaged in the process of metallising/lacquering of polyester film. In the process of metallising the polyester film, the appellants were using refractory ceramic and evaporation boats for evaporating aluminium wire. The evaporator bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere used as equipments in the process of metalling polyester film. 4. The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector by the order-in-original dated 1-12-1993 rejected the appellant's contention that ceramic evaporator boats were necessary for metallising/lacquering of polyester film and, therefore, they are to be treated as inputs in terms of Rule 57A. The appellants had relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Singh Alloys and Steel Limited v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had considered in detail the provisions of Rule 57A especially the provisions of Clause (i) to Explanation to Rule 57A. The As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of vaporising the metal and its use in metallising the process. Both the processes are essential in metallising/lacquering polyester films on which the appellants had paid duty. It cannot therefore, be denied that evaporator boat is used in or in relation to metallisation of polyester films and, therefore, Modvat credit of duty paid on the evaporator boats is allowable. He relied on the Apex Court decision in J.K. Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.) = 1965 (16) STC 563 wherein the Apex Court had held that evaporator boat used in the process of vapourising would fall within the expression `used in the manufacture of goods'. Further, even if evaporator boats are treated as part of equ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the appellants in their favour. In Collector of Central Excise v. Durgapur Cement Works, supra, the question that was considered was whether steel bolts, (grinding media) were excluded by exclusion Clause (i) of Explanation to Rule 57A. The Tribunal had held that steel bolts cannot be regarded as part of ball mill as they were not a self contained or complete unit or group or assembly of parts. In that view of the matter the Tribunal had agreed with the view of the Collector (Appeals) that the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit of duty paid on steel bolts under Rule 57A. In the case of Union Carbide India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, the Larger Bench had held that the words "in or in relation to manufacture" was used by ....