2004 (11) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss steel ingots. They were not paying duty of excise on the captive clearances of ceramic moulds. In a show cause notice dated 17-4-1995, the department demanded duty on such clearances for the period 1-10-1994 to 15-3-1995. This demand was contested by the assessee who claimed that ceramic moulds were not marketable goods and hence not excisable. Alternatively, they argued that the goods if at all excisable were classifiable under Heading 84.80 and consequently exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The original authority, which adjudicated the dispute, confirmed the demand of duty against the assessee after holding that the ceramic moulds were excisable goods classifiable under Heading 69.11 and did not fall within....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A reference was also made to M.F. (D.R.) Letter F. No. 133/2/88-CX. 4, dated 11-4-1989, wherein it had been clarified that the exemption under the above Notification was not available to saggars and moulds (for captive use) which were tools or appliances and not inputs as defined in the Notification. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the cross-objections filed by the party. He argued, on the strength of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (82) E.L.T. 575 (Tribunal)], that the ceramic moulds were not marketable and hence not excisable. The Revenue could not prove the marketability of the item. As regards classification, ld. Counsel argued that the goods wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orities for classifying the subject goods are immaterial to Notification No. 217/86-C.E. ibid inasmuch as both Chapters 84 [claimed by the assessee] and 69 [claimed by the Revenue] figured in Col. No. (2) captioned 'description of inputs' in the Table annexed to the Notification. In other words, ceramic moulds, whether falling under Chapter 69 or under Chapter 84 of the CETA Schedule, used captively for the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule, would attract the exemption under the Notification, provided the moulds could be treated as "inputs" as defined in the Notification. 6. The question, now, before us is whether the subject goods fell within the meaning of 'inputs' as defined in Notification No. 217/86-C.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ature of tools, appliances, etc., and hence, by virtue of the above clause, they are not eligible inputs for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 217/86. 7. Going by common parlance, one can easily see that tools, appliances, etc. are not perishable items and are capable of being repeatedly used. It is also pertinent to note that the expressions "tools" and "appliances", in clause (i) of Explanation ibid, exist in the company of "machines", "machinery", "plant", "equipment" and "apparatus" all of which are meant to be used for "producing or processing of any goods or bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product". Like machines, machinery, plant, equipment and apparatus....