1994 (9) TMI 71 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the metal screw cap put on the bottle of the Horlicks is no part of the manufacturing process because the Horlicks itself is a finished product and ready for consumption when it reaches the bottling plant? Held that - When Item IB under which the product falls says prepared or preserved foods put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale then for becoming an excisable article Horlicks must be put in containers ready for sale. The screw cap shall be deemed to be component part of Horlicks and Notification No. 201/79-C.E. aforesaid shall be applicable wherein the Central Government exempted all excisable goods on which duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Act had been used as raw material or component parts from so much of the duty of the excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether metal screw caps used on bottles containing Horlicks qualify as component parts for exemption under Notification No. 201/79-C.E.
2. Interpretation of Item IB CET regarding excisability of prepared or preserved foods put up in unit containers.
3. Determining if metal screw caps are essential components for Horlicks to be considered excisable goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged a Tribunal's order regarding the excisability of metal screw caps on Horlicks bottles. The Tribunal held the caps were not part of the manufacturing process as Horlicks was a finished product before bottling. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed, considering the caps as essential components for packaging Horlicks. The dispute revolved around Notification No. 201/79-C.E., which exempts excisable goods using certain inputs from duty.

2. The Notification exempted excisable goods using specific inputs from duty, provided those inputs were essential components. The appellant argued that metal screw caps were component parts of Horlicks under the Notification. Reference was made to Item IB CET, suggesting that Horlicks became excisable only when put in unit containers. The majority judgment emphasized that the container did not form an integral part of the finished product, focusing on taxing goods described and packed in containers.

3. The Court analyzed whether metal screw caps were component parts for Horlicks to be excisable. Drawing parallels with a previous case involving name-plates on fans, the Court concluded that essential components necessary for marketing the product were entitled to duty set-off. Applying the same reasoning, the Court deemed the screw caps as component parts of Horlicks, making them eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. The respondent did not contest this interpretation, leading to the appeal's allowance and setting aside of the Tribunal's majority judgment.

4. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) order regarding the excisability of metal screw caps on Horlicks bottles. The judgment clarified the interpretation of excisability under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and the significance of essential components in determining excisability for duty exemptions.