Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of C.Ex., Chennai vs Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. on 9 May, 2001
ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 204/95 (M) dated 10.10.95 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the following products are eligible for availment of modvat credit:-
(a) Cation Resins
(b) Anion Resins
(c) Hydrochloric Acid & Caustic Soda Lye.
2. While so holding, he has relied on the following judgements:-
(1) SAMTEL INDIA LTD Vs CCE Pune reported in 1994 (71) ELT 737 (Tri) -- Caustic soda & Hydrochloric Acid used in process of de-ionositation essential for manufacture of T V Picture tubes out of inter glass shells - entitled to Modvat credit.
(2) Collector of Central Excise Vs SESHASAYEE PAPER BOARDS -- 1992 (61) ELT 304 (Tri) -- Hydrochloric Acid, Sulphuric Acid used for treatment of water are inputs used in relation to manufacture of paper - modvat credit available.
(3) Collector of Central Excise Vs POLCHEM LTD -- 1994 (74) ELT 928 (Tri) -- Chemicals used for purification of water before conversion of the same into steam which in turn is used in the manufacture of Vinyl Acetate Memomer is eligible for modvat credit.
3. Revenue is aggrieved with this order and hence this appeal.
4. Ld. SDR sought for setting aside the order on the grounds as stated in appeal memo and submitted that they cannot be considered as inputs for the manufacture of final products as negligible portion of D.M. water is used in the process and that too to maintain moisture content and for washing ammonium salts, as held by the AC with regard to resins used to demineralise water i.e. to remove water of sodium, calcium, magnesium and silica etc. So also Caustic soda, Hydrochloric Acid used for re-generation of Cation/Anion Resins cannot also be granted benefit.
5. Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned order is sustainable and the Commissioner has correctly followed the earlier judgements. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) in another Order-in-Appeal No. 407/90 (M) dated 13.12.90 had denied benefit of modvat credit on the present items and also some other items noted in the memorandum of appeal. The said order has been relied on. However, that order was challenged by the appellants in E/188/91 and the appeal came up for consideration before this Bench and after due consideration, the appeal was allowed by final order No. 418/2001 date 16.3.2001 wherein all these four items besides other items noted therein have been held to be entitled for the benefit of modvat credit. He submits that the reasoning s given by the Tribunal in the cited case completely applies to the facts of this case and answers the grounds raised by the appellant Commissioner in this appeal.
6. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that in grounds of appeal the Commissioner has relied on his earlier order-in-appeal No. 407/90 (M) dated 13.12.90 with regard to same items on which modvat credit had been denied. This appeal had been challenged by appellants in E/188/91 and the said appeal came up for final hearing before this Bench and by final order No. 418/2001 dated 16.3.2001 upheld the assessee's contention for grant of modvat credit on the duty paid Caustic Soda, Hydrochloric Acid, Cation/Anion resins besides other items noted therein. The Tribunal has discussed in great detail as to how these items can be considered as inputs in the light of modvat rules. Several judgements have also been quoted including the term "raw material" and "inputs" as appearing in Apex Court judgement rendered in CCE Vs BALARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD -- 1999 (43) ELT 804 (SC). Further reliance is also made to the term of "in relation to" which was discussed in Apex Court judgement rendered in DOYPACK SYSTEMS (PVT) LTD Vs UOI, 1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC). The judgement of Apex Court rendered in CCE Vs RAJASTHAN STATE CHEMICALS WORKS -- 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC) with regard to interpretation of the terms "in relation to" was also discussed. The judgement rendered in MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD Vs CCE -- 1990 (31) ECR 209 (T) was also relied on besides judgement of SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LTD Vs CCE -- 1996 (84) ELT 288. Large number of other judgements have also been quoted including the Larger Bench judgment to hold that assessee is entitled to claim of modvat credit. The judgement has been rendered in appellant's own case granting benefit of the modvat credit and the ratio would completely apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open court)