1987 (4) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against denial of permission to avail proforma credit on duty paid items.
- Claim for relief under Notification 178/77-C.E. and Notification 201/79-C.E.
- Determination of eligibility for benefit under the mentioned notifications.
- Classification of input goods in relation to manufactured goods.
- Interpretation of the concept of input goods under Notification 201/79.
- Analysis of previous decisions on similar issues.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to an appeal where the Deputy Collector of Central Excise denied permission to the appellants to avail proforma credit on duty paid items. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Collector, leading the appellants to file a revision petition to the Central Government, which was transferred to the Tribunal for consideration as a deemed appeal.

2. The appellants did not appear in person during the proceedings, and the Tribunal heard the department's representative and examined the records provided.

3. The appellants sought permission to avail proforma credit under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules. Additionally, they claimed relief under Notification 178/77-C.E. and Notification 201/79-C.E., arguing that cartons/boxes and printed boards used in their manufacturing process should be considered as inputs for the purpose of these notifications.

4. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing various products such as knitting needles, snap fasteners, and pins. The products are packed in boxes and cartons after being placed on printed boards. The Tribunal noted the need to determine the eligibility for relief concerning the boards, boxes, and cartons used in the manufacturing process.

5. Previous decisions on the eligibility for benefits under Notification 178/77 and Notification 201/79 were referenced, highlighting the requirement for input goods to be integral components of the manufactured products to qualify for relief under these notifications.

6. The department argued that the printed boards, boxes, and cartons did not become part of the final manufactured goods and therefore were not eligible for relief under Notification 201/79 post an amendment in 1982. The Tribunal considered this argument in light of the specific facts of the case.

7. The Tribunal differentiated between the nature of input goods used in previous cases and the goods in question in the present appeal. It emphasized that for input goods to qualify for relief, they must be essential for making the manufactured goods marketable. In this case, the printed boards and boxes were deemed as input goods under Notification 201/79 until a certain date.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing relief under Notification 201/79 until a specified date for printed boards and boxes but not for cartons or boxes used for transport purposes. The orders of the lower authorities were modified accordingly, granting relief to the appellants as per the Tribunal's decision.