2000 (4) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicated four Show Cause Notices and held that the said items are not inputs for purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the said orders. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri M.P. Devnath submits before us that the two items are essential for the manufacture of the final products, namely, glass shells manufactured by the appellants. He explains that manufacture of glass shells is a technologically intensive and complex operation and the manufacturing process is subject to rigorous quality control parameters so as to ensure that the finished product is completely free from all defects and to see that the glass shell is capable of performing its role as an important component of Te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioned processes are indispensable for purpose of marketing the glass shells, they are entitled to Modvat credit as inputs under Rule 57A. He submits that the authorities below have wrongly held that the two items in dispute were accessories to the machines to make it functional for the purpose of bringing about the required finish on the glass panels. Ld. Counsel submitted that the reliance placed by the Asstt. Commissioner in the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE v. Indian Plywood Co. (P) Ltd., 1993 (63) E.L.T. 328 (T) was not applicable in the case of appellants since the said decision has subsequently been over-ruled by the Tribunal in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 252 (T). He submitted that the disputed items were inputs and not machines and ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the appellants themselves have admitted that both the items, rubber sleeves and wool felts get consumed in the process of manufacture and no percentage thereof becomes part of the final product. They cannot therefore be considered as inputs for purposes of Rule 57A. Appellants' reliance on the Tribunal decision in Union Carbide case cannot also be accepted as correct since the exclusion clause in Rule 57A clearly covered capital goods as defined in Rule 57Q. Rule 57Q covered accessories also. Since both rubber sleeves and wool felt are accessories of Pumice machine and rough machine respectively, they were covered by the exclusion clause of Rule 57A. Ld. SDR therefore prayed for the confirmation of the impugned orders. 5. We ha....