TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and on different grounds, for the period from December, 1994 to October, 1995. An equivalent amount of personal penalty has also been imposed upon the appellants. 2. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate assisted by Shri Partha Banerjee, learned Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, learned JDR for the Revenue. We will deal with the different items in the following paragraphs :- 2. The benefit of Modvat credit has been denied in respect of Fire Bricks/Refractory Bricks and other Refractories classifiable under Chapter 69, on the ground that the same cannot be considered as inputs, as they did not get transformed into the final products. For holding so, learned adjudicating authority has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-Heading Nos. 3823.00/3815.00/3909.51; (ii) Foset, Foseco, Uniset and Phenol Resin falling under Sub-Heading No. 3909.51. According to the appellants, the above products are chemicals, resins used for making Sand Cores. These are used as binders for keeping the sand in the shape of the core until liquid metal is poured into the cores for pipe making. After each process, the sand core breaks down into loose sand. The appellants' contention is that without making Sand Cores with the help of the said chemicals and resins, it is simply not possible or feasible to manufacture the appellants' final products. The said binders, chemicals, resins are clearly used in the manufacture of the final product. The appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be disallowed for the reasons recorded by us in the preceding paragraph wherein we held that the denial of Modvat credit in respect of Hardners, Chemicals and Resins used for making Sand Cores/Sand Moulds, was not justified. 6. A part of the Modvat credit has been denied in respect of Foundry Chemicals/Fluxes and Coating Materials falling under Heading No. 38.23 and Mixed Rare Earth Metals falling under Heading No. 28.05. According to Shri Bagaria, learned Advocate, Foundry Chemicals/Fluxes of the aforesaid category are Slax-30, Forrogen and other Foundry Fluxes falling under Heading No. 38.23. Slax-30 is a chemical product and is used for coagulating the slag on the liquid metal surface. This helps in removing the dirty part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It becomes a part of the liquid metal out of which the appellants' final products are manufactured. It is thus used directly as a raw material for manufacture of final products. 6.1 Shri Bagaria, learned Advocate further contended that the Commissioner has himself observed that the inputs in question were used in relation to manufacture of the appellants' final products. In spite of this and on a complete non-application of mind, he has disallowed the Credit on the ground that the same do not get consumed in the final product itself. He refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.Ex. v. Steel Strips Alloys Limited reported in 1999(32) RLT-299. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that inasmuch as the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: - (i) 1999 (111) E.L.T. 870 (S.T.S. Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE); (ii) 1998 (103) E.L.T. 65 (Ramgarh Chini Mills v. CCE); (iii) 1998 (102) E.L.T. 466 (Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE); (iv) 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE); (v) 2000 (37) RLT-182 (Sipani Automobiles v. CCE). Reference has also been made to the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance vide its Circular No. 211/45/96-CX, dated 14-5-1996. The said Circular, submits the learned Advocate, has been ignored by the Commissioner. We agree with the submission of the leaned Advocate that as long as there is no dispute about the duty-paid char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be marked as 'Duplicate'. However, we agree that this being procedural lapse should not be made the basis for denying the substantive benefit of Modvat credit. 10. Further, a portion of the Modvat credit has been denied on the ground that ramming mass cannot be treated as an input. After hearing both sides, we observe that the issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE. v. A.B. Tools Limited reported in 1994 (71)E.L.T. 776, holding ramming marks to be admissible inputs. As such, following the ratio of the same, we allow the Credit in respect of ramming marks. 11. A small portion of the Credit has been denied on the ground that the declaration did not cover UNISET-710 either by name ....