Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Carbon Industries (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 May, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986(25)ELT295(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India against Order-in-Appeal No. 56/82 (M) dated 9th February, 1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this has been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.
2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants manufacture carbon element and zinc element falling under Tariff Item 68. The appellants applied for permission to avail of proforma credit on corrugated boxes received on payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 and used for packing these carbon element and zinc element in terms of Notification No. 201/79 dated 4th June, 1979. This proforma credit was refused by the 'Assistant Collector on the ground that cartons as packing material are not actual inputs in the manufacture of carbon and zinc elements. When the appellants went in appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, he also held that carbon element and zinc elements are complete as soon as they come into existence and that the packing of these goods thereafter cannot be termed as an input in the manufacture of carbon elements and zinc elements.
3. Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted before us that carbon elements and zinc elements must, after manufacture, be securely packed in order to preserve the cell components and to protect the same against damage and losses in storage. Therefore, it is urged that the packing container cannot but be considered as an input as visualised in Notification No. 201/79. Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate has cited the following case law in his favour.
(i) 1985 (19) ELT 96 - Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
(ii) 1984 (17) ELT 455 - CCE, Calcutta v. Kanoria Jute Mills.
(iii) 1985 (19) E.L.T. 166 - Universal Cables Ltd., Satna v. CCE, Indore.
4. It is submitted, in all the above decisions the Orders have been against Revenue.
5. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, learned JDR concedes that these earlier CEGAT decisions are against Revenue on the point at issue. However,he states that Department has gone up in appeal against these decisions.
6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made on both sides. We find that in the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (supra), it was observed that Notification No. 201/79 exempted excisable goods in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 (referred to as inputs in the Notification) had been used to the extent of duty, of excise that had already been paid on the inputs. Whereas the term 'input' is of wide scope, the Department had wanted to narrow or restrict its scope and interpret the Notification to mean that Item 68 goods should enter into the composition and form part or ingredients of the finished products, i.e., they should be used as raw material or components. Such a requirement, it was held by the Tribunal was introduced only on 28th February, 1982 by the amending Notification No. 105/82 which narrowed down scope of the 1979 Notification and the expression 'input'. It was as a result of this amendment that it became necessary that the finished excisable goods should inter alia be made from the Item 68 goods if they were to earn exemption. It was, therefore, held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 in respect of printed cartons on which duty under Item No. 68 had been paid, used in the manufacture of synthetic detergents marketed in such cartons.
7. Again in the case of Universal Cables Ltd., Satna v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore , 1984 ECR 1864, it was held by this Tribunal that wooden drums used in the packing of electric wires and cables were to be treated as inputs for the purpose of Notification 178/77-CE.
8. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan has stated nothing which would indicate that all aspects of the issue were not fully examined before the above-cited orders of the Tribunal were passed. All he says is that the Department has gone in appeal.
9. We fully concur with the view taken by the different Benches of the Tribunal in similar matters cited above. In accordance with the ratio of these decisions, we, therefore, allow the present appeal before us with consequential relief to the appellant.