TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were captively using the same availing the benefit of Modvat credit on the inputs of bus-bar. Bus bar was exempted from duty in terms of Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995. It was, therefore, alleged that Modvat credit of inputs on bus bar was inadmissible as per the provisions of Rule 57C. The appellants stopped payment of duty against clearance of bus-bar used captively in the manufacture of final product and hence the authorities observed that balance of credit as on 16-3-1995 in RG 23A Part II register which amounted to Rs. 34,50,268.88 could not be utilized by the appellants after 16-3-1995. It was also alleged that Modvat credit of Rs. 1,32,465.66 was wrongly taken between the period 16-3-1995 to 18-5-1995. Accordingly, a show-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575. 4.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that prior to 18-5-1995 bus-bar was a specified item as an intermediate product; that prior to 16-3-1995 Rule 57D specifies a product as intermediate product provided such product satisfies the twin requirement of being used within factory of production in the manufacture of final product and being specified as final product under Rule 57A of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1994; that bus-bar satisfies both these requirements; that Rule 57D w.e.f. 18-5-1995 specifically covers even capital goods as intermediate product. In support of these contentions the learned Counsel cited and relied upon the following decisions : (a) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above submissions the appeal may be allowed. 7.Shri Atul Saxena, learned DR submits that bus-bar was not declared as an intermediate product by the appellant and since it was not declared as intermediate product, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit available under Rule 57D (2) of Central Excise Rules. He submits that unless a declaration is there, the benefit cannot be given. Learned DR submits that bus-bar was exempted, therefore, embargo of Rule 57C was applicable in the present case inasmuch as the question of taking credit on the input used in the manufacture of bus-bar is concerned. Learned DR submits that as the issue in the instant case can be bifurcated into two periods. First the balance as on 16-3-1995 and the deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture of the final products, they are intermediate products. Because they are classifiable under a Tariff Heading and are otherwise final products themselves are not inconsistent with their identity as intermediate product vis-a-vis the final product, paints". 9.On perusal of the C/List submitted by the appellant we note that they have clearly indicated that bus-bar is used for manufacture of aluminium and products thereof. Thus it is a clear indication that bus-bar is intermediate product. We further note that in the case of C.C.E, Meerut v. Flex Lamination this Tribunal observed that since the same product may be final product in respect of particular goods but may be intermediate product in relation to others and that a product is fi....