Try our new portal www.taxtmi.com for a better experience!

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1997 1997 (1) This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 460 Records

1997 (1) TMI 294

Issues:
Importability of Lithium Metal as a drug intermediate.

Analysis:
The appeal dealt with the importability of Lithium Metal, specifically whether it qualifies as a drug intermediate. The appellant imported Lithium Metal under the OGL heading, but Customs authorities refused clearance citing the requirement of a valid license as per a Public Notice. The appellant attended a personal hearing where they explained the chemical process involved in manufacturing the end product, Vitamin A Acetate, which does not directly include Lithium Metal. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal judgment in a similar case to support their argument.

The Respondent, represented by the JDR, argued that the term "drug intermediate" was not defined but referred to previous cases to establish that intermediates are organic chemicals between the parent substance and the final product. The Respondent cited various definitions and previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance. The impugned order noted that Lithium Metal did not form part of the end product based on the Dy. C.C. report, which was not shared with the appellant, leading to an argument of a lack of natural justice.

The judgment emphasized that natural justice cannot be rigidly defined and relied on the chemical process described by the appellants themselves. Despite Lithium Metal participating in the manufacturing process, since it did not form part of the end product, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be considered a drug intermediate. The judgment dismissed the appeal, highlighting that previous clearance of a consignment does not justify the current import without a valid license.
1997 (1) TMI 293

The Revenue Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. Duty was not leviable on gas cylinders destroyed during testing as they were not considered excisable goods until testing was completed according to ISI Specifications and Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The Collector (Appeals) decision was upheld in favor of the respondents.
1997 (1) TMI 292

The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 26-11-1990 regarding the classification of "Sticker Kum-kum (Bindi)" under Heading 3307.00. The Tribunal held that the product was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 235/86 and subsequent notifications. The Tribunal found that the appellant's product was similar to the one covered in a previous order and allowed the appeal.
1997 (1) TMI 291

The appellant imported rubber blankets for textile printing machine under Open General Licence. Customs denied clearance, claiming the goods were conveyor belts. Tribunal found rubber blankets specialized for textile printing, allowing clearance under OGL. Appeal allowed.
1997 (1) TMI 290

The Commissioner appealed the Collector's decision stating an individual in possession of goods with unpaid duty is not personally liable. The Departmental Representative argued that the Customs Act makes the owner liable for duty on confiscated goods. The Tribunal agreed, overturning the Collector's decision. (1997 (1) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MUMBAI)
1997 (1) TMI 289

Issues: Classification of product under Tariff Heading 4823.90 vs. 3920.31

In the present case, the appeal was lodged against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad, dated 3-12-1991. The appellant manufactured 'Industrial Decorative Laminated Paper and Sheets'. The main contention revolved around the classification of the product under Tariff Heading 4823.90 or 3920.31. The appellant argued that their product was classifiable under Tariff Heading 4823.90, while the department classified it under Heading 3920.31. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the petition of the respondents, classifying the product under 4823.90, based on previous tribunal orders and the interpretation of Chapter Note 1(f) of Chapter 48. The department, however, argued that the product should be classified under Chapter 39 due to the exclusion clause in Chapter Note 1(f).

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by both parties. It noted that the respondents had relied on previous tribunal orders, and since the department failed to show any substantial differences in the product under consideration, the Tribunal's previous orders were to be followed. The Collector (Appeals) had taken into account the product description while applying the tribunal's orders. The department drew attention to the Board's Circular Letter and Chapter Note 1(f), which specified criteria for classification under Chapter 48.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the product in question had more than 68% paper content by weight and thickness, with less than 40% resin content. This composition did not fall under Chapter Note 1(f) as per the Board's tariff advice. As the product met the criteria established in previous tribunal orders, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)' decision to classify the product under Tariff Heading 4823.90. The department's appeal was rejected, and the Collector (Appeals)' orders were upheld. The Cross Objection was also disposed of accordingly.
1997 (1) TMI 288

Issues:
1. Classification of thermocol items for central excise duty.
2. Applicability of Notification Nos. 132/86, 53/88, 23/90, and 13/91.
3. Interpretation of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 39.
4. Retroactive effect of 11C notifications.

Classification of Thermocol Items:
The appellants believed their products were classified under 39.26 as articles of plastics and exempt from central excise duty. However, the department viewed them as blocks and sheets under 39.21, requiring duty payment. The dispute arose over this classification and duty liability.

Applicability of Notifications:
Initially, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification Nos. 132/86 and 53/88 for exemption. Later, they cited 11C Notification No. 23/90, asserting their eligibility for relief. The Additional Collector rejected this, stating the benefit applied only to blocks and sheets used in thermocol article manufacturing. Subsequently, Notification No. 13/91 amended this requirement.

Interpretation of Chapter Note 10:
Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 39 clarified that blocks and sheets, even if cut into articles ready for use, remained under sub-heading 39.20/39.21. This note influenced the classification and treatment of the thermocol items in question.

Retroactive Effect of 11C Notifications:
The Tribunal noted the retrospective nature of 11C notifications, providing relief for past periods. Considering the interplay between Notification Nos. 23/90 and 13/91, the Tribunal held that the amendments covered the products and period in question. Consequently, the demand for duty, even if valid, was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal emphasized ensuring the intended benefit was not denied or the purpose defeated, leading to the acceptance of the appeal without delving into other issues like time bar.

This judgment primarily addressed the classification of thermocol items for central excise duty, the impact of specific notifications, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the retroactive application of beneficial notifications. The Tribunal's analysis focused on reconciling conflicting interpretations of notifications and legal provisions to grant relief to the appellants based on the retrospective nature of 11C notifications and the subsequent amendment clarifying eligibility criteria.
1997 (1) TMI 287

Issues: Assessment of goods under Tariff Heading 85.01 or 85.12.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the assessment of goods described as "wiper motor with tubular link" under Tariff Heading 85.01 or 85.12. The appellant argued that the goods should be assessed under T.I. 85.01, while the respondent and authorities below contended for assessment under T.I. 85.12. The dispute centered around whether the attachment of the link would bring the item within the ambit of T.I. 85.12. The appellant emphasized that the goods were electric motors and not windscreen wipers, thus falling under T.I. 85.01. The appellant also highlighted that the lower authority had not considered Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 85, which would exclude goods covered under Tariff Heading 85.12 from 85.01.

The appellant further argued that even if gears were attached to the electric motors, they would still fall under T.I. 85.01 according to HSN notes. The appellant contended that the Chapter note should only apply if the goods manufactured specifically answered the description of goods under T.I. 85.12, which only mentioned windscreen wipers. The appellant reasoned that since windscreen wipers alone were specified, the motor designed for use in windscreen wipers should not be assessable under that heading. In response, the respondent argued that once the main item was assessable under Heading 85.12, the parts intended for its use should also fall under the same heading.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the issue required a thorough examination in the context of Tariff Headings 85.01 and 85.12, along with Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 85. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were not windscreen wipers but electric motors with an attachment for potential use in windscreen wipers. However, crucial features and characteristics of the motors were not presented for consideration, necessitating a deeper analysis. The Tribunal highlighted the need to determine the scope of Chapter Note 2 concerning the description and scope of entries under Headings 85.01 and 85.12. It was noted that the lower authority had not delved into these aspects adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's order and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication, providing both parties with an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were allowed by remand, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive examination of the relevant provisions and features of the goods in question.
1997 (1) TMI 286

The appeal arose from an order confirming duty amount and penalty imposed on the appellant for not following correct procedure under Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found that the department's readjudication of proceedings was not valid as there was no suppression of facts, and the demand was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
1997 (1) TMI 285

Issues: Classification of Zinc Dross under Tariff Heading 79.01 as waste and scrap of zinc or under Chapter Heading 26.02 as residue.

The judgment deals with the issue of classification of Zinc Dross, containing over 93% zinc content, under Tariff Heading 79.01 as waste and scrap of zinc or under Chapter Heading 26.02 as residue. The lower authority classified the goods under Tariff Heading 79.01, but the appellants argued for classification under Chapter Heading 26.02 as residue obtained after the galvanizing process with zinc slabs. The advocate for the appellants cited international classification NARI, specifically referring to the code word for the product "Scrub" at Sl. No. 72, describing the characteristics of the product. The advocate argued that the goods imported were residue and not waste and scrap falling under Chapter Heading 79.01.

The learned SDR contended that the imported goods were waste and scrap of zinc, as they were obtained from the virgin metal used in the electrolytic process. He referred to the ISI definition for Dross, which described it as waste and scrap of zinc. The SDR argued that the goods with 93% metal content could not be considered as ash or residue. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both sides and analyzed the relevant tariff headings. Chapter 26 pertains to Metal Ores, Slag, and Ash, while Tariff 2602/04 covers Slag, Ash, and Residue containing metals or metallic contents. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were not obtained from metallic ores but from the electrolytic process with zinc sheets. The NARI Circular NF-82 was referenced, which standardizes classifications for non-ferrous scrap metals. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' goods were rightly classified under Tariff Heading 79.01 as waste and scrap of zinc, dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the judgment resolved the issue of classification of Zinc Dross, emphasizing the distinction between waste and scrap under Tariff Heading 79.01 and residue under Chapter Heading 26.02. The Tribunal considered the nature of the goods, the process of their extraction, and the relevant international classifications. Ultimately, based on the analysis of the applicable tariff headings and the characteristics of the imported goods, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Tariff Heading 79.01, affirming the lower authority's decision and dismissing the appeal.
1997 (1) TMI 284

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 83/83 for duty exemption on first clearances.
2. Reckoning of assessable value for determining duty payment.
3. Impact of partial exemption under Notification No. 245/83 on valuation method.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order confirming duty payment issued by the Collector (Appeals) based on the Assistant Collector's decision regarding the appellant's entitlement to duty exemption under Notification No. 83/83 for first clearances up to Rs. 7.5 lakhs between 1-4-1984 to 20-7-1984.

2. The appellant contended that the assessable value should be calculated by deducting the excise duty element as per the exemption notification. However, the Department argued that for clearances up to Rs. 7.5 lakhs with full exemption, the duty element cannot be deducted to arrive at a lower assessable value, a stance upheld by the Tribunal.

3. The appellant raised the issue of partial exemption under Notification No. 245/83, stating that the valuation method for retail prices under this notification should impact the assessable value calculation for Notification No. 83/83. The Tribunal clarified that the valuation method under Notification No. 245/83 does not alter the valuation method prescribed in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The exemption under Notification No. 245/83 is based on retail prices after a 15% discount and does not affect the assessable value calculation under Notification No. 83/83.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant's method of deducting the duty element from the assessable value for first clearances under Notification No. 83/83 was incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the valuation method under Notification No. 245/83 does not impact the assessable value calculation for duty payment purposes under Notification No. 83/83.

5. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Department's position that for clearances up to the exemption limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs under Notification No. 83/83, the duty element cannot be deducted from the assessable value. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the valuation method under Notification No. 245/83 does not alter the prescribed valuation method under the Central Excise Act, 1944, for determining assessable value.
1997 (1) TMI 283

Issues: Sufficiency of declaration under Modvat Scheme for extending Modvat credit.

In this case, the issue revolved around the sufficiency of the declaration under the Modvat Scheme for extending Modvat credit. The applicants had filed a Modvat declaration under Rule 57G, declaring their inputs as Spin Finish Oil classifiable under Chapter Heading 34.02 or 34.03. The dispute arose when the credit availed on Sapcostat 2152P, falling under sub-heading 34.03, was disallowed as the declaration mentioned a general description of goods as Spin Finish Oil by various trade names. The Assistant Collector disallowed a portion of the credit, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) and subsequently by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the specific product, Sapcostat Finish, was not mentioned in the declaration, and the Tariff sub-heading for Spin Finish was not specified in the declaration filed by the applicants. The Counsel for the appellants argued that since Sapcostat was a brand name for Spin Finish Oil and Chapter 34 was declared in the 57G declaration, it should have been considered sufficient. The dispute centered on whether the declaration adequately covered the specific product for which credit was sought.

The learned DR contended that the sufficiency of the declaration was a question of fact, not a question of law necessitating reference to the High Court. However, the Tribunal held that the sufficiency of the declaration under the Modvat Scheme indeed raised a question of law. Considering that the Department acknowledged Sapcostat Finish as a type of Spin Finish Oil, and the applicants had declared Spin Finish Oils by various trade names, along with declaring Chapter 34 in their 57G declaration, the Tribunal concluded that a question of law existed for reference to the High Court.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to refer the question to the High Court of Rajasthan, seeking clarification on whether the declaration filed under Rule 57G should be accepted for extending Modvat credit when the description of goods was of a general nature, such as Spin Finish Oil by various trade names, while the goods received bore a specific trade name, Sapcostat 2152P, both falling under Chapter 34 of the CETA, 1985. The judgment highlighted the importance of clarity and specificity in declarations under the Modvat Scheme to ensure the proper availing of credits based on the nature and classification of goods.
1997 (1) TMI 282

Issues: Classification of silk tops and silk noils under Tariff Heading 5001 or Heading 5601 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the classification of silk tops and silk noils under the Central Excise Tariff Act, specifically whether they fall under Tariff Heading 5001 or Heading 5601. The Assistant Collector initially classified the items under Heading 5001, stating that they do not qualify as wadding of textile due to their length exceeding 5 mm and lack of absorbency for sanitary purposes. This decision was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The department, dissatisfied with this classification, appealed the decision.

During the appeal, the Revenue argued that Rule 4 of Interpretation Rules should apply, while the Respondent's Advocate contended that the length of the items, ranging from 45 mm to 60 mm, excludes them from Chapter 56 classification. The Advocate further relied on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) to support the classification under Chapter 50 for silk noils and silk tops.

Upon careful consideration of both arguments and a review of the records, the Tribunal examined the relevant Tariff Items. It was established that fibers of textiles not exceeding 5 mm are classified under Chapter 56, which was not the case for the items in question. The length of silk noils and silk tops being between 45 mm to 60 mm excluded them from Chapter 56 classification, as confirmed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal also referenced the HSN, specifically noting that silk noils fall under Heading 50.03, emphasizing the distinction between silk waste and noil silk. Additionally, Chapter 56 pertains to wadding, felt, and non-wovens, while sub-heading 5601.00 specifies textile fibers not exceeding 5 mm in length. Given the absence of a specific entry for the items in question and in consideration of the HSN Notes, the Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities' classification under Heading 5001 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.
1997 (1) TMI 281

Issues:
1. Disallowance of benefit of captive consumption under proviso to Rules 9(1) and Rule 49(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment revolved around the disallowance of the benefit of captive consumption under the proviso to Rules 9(1) and Rule 49(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) had disallowed the benefit on the basis that HDPE fabrics arose in the process of manufacturing HDPE tapes to HDPE sacks, leading to a classification issue. The appellants, manufacturers of HDPE sacks, argued that HDPE tapes and HDPE sacks were classifiable under the same Tariff Heading, T.I. 68, during the material period. The appellants contended that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) should be available to them as per the specified conditions.

The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the provisions stipulated in Rules 9(1) and 49(4), emphasizing that the benefit should be available if the goods are specified by the Central Government, and if the commodity was classifiable under the same Item No. in the Tariff as it stood before the new Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Citing a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Auroplast (India) Ltd., the Counsel argued that the conditions for availing the benefit were met as HDPE tapes were utilized in the manufacture of HDPE sacks under the proviso to Rule 9. The Tribunal's decision in the Auroplast case was crucial in establishing that the benefit could be extended to HDPE sacks manufactured from HDPE tapes.

On the other hand, the learned JDR representing the Department reiterated the position that HDPE fabrics were not classifiable under the same Tariff Item as HDPE tapes and sacks, supporting the denial of the benefit by the lower authorities. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and referring to previous decisions, concluded that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) could indeed be extended to the appellants. The Tribunal relied on its previous rulings in the Auroplast case and another case involving M/s. Primo Pick N Pick (P) Ltd. to support its decision.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) would be admissible to the appellants. The judgment clarified that the decision applied specifically to M/s. Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. and directed that any consequential relief should be granted to the appellants in accordance with the law.
1997 (1) TMI 280

Issues Involved: Determination of duty liability on combined production of two units, validity of show cause notice, applicability of procedural safeguards.

Duty Liability on Combined Production:
The Central Excise Officers detained stock of locks manufactured by a factory and seized similar goods claimed to be manufactured by another unit. After investigations, it was concluded that the production of these two units should be clubbed together, resulting in a duty demand for excess combined production during a specific year. The Dy. Collector confirmed the demand for past clearances and imposed duty on detained goods, along with a penalty on the factory. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

Validity of Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the two units, M/s. Gore Industries and M/s. Ogesh Industries, were separate corporate entities. It was contended that the show cause notice should have been issued to M/s. Gore Industries as well, as they were distinct entities. The absence of a show cause notice to M/s. Gore Industries was deemed a violation of natural justice principles, as it did not allow for a fair adjudication process. The failure to issue a notice to both units indicated a lack of proper consideration by the authorities, rendering the show cause notice invalid in law.

Applicability of Procedural Safeguards:
Referring to a judgment by the Bombay High Court, it was emphasized that procedural safeguards, including the issuance of a show cause notice, are essential for ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice principles. The show cause notice in question was found to be issued for a period beyond the statutory limitation, and it was signed by an unauthorized officer, making it legally defective. Consequently, the appeal succeeded on the grounds of the invalid show cause notice and the duty demand being time-barred. The lower orders were set aside, and relief was granted to the appellant.
1997 (1) TMI 279

Issues: Challenge to orders enhancing value of Two-Wheelers and Three-Wheelers, waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.

In the present case, the applicant contested orders issued by the adjudicating authority and appellate authority, which raised the value of Two-Wheelers and Three-Wheelers manufactured by the appellant and cleared during a specific period, demanding a differential duty. The applicant sought a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The contention revolved around the addition of notional interest on booking advances and security deposits. The appellant had received booking advances prior to the relevant period and claimed that the entire amount was deposited, not just 50% as required, and hence, not used as working capital during the period under question. The second aspect involved security deposits from spare parts dealers, with the adjudicating authority asserting that these amounts were utilized in manufacturing vehicles, imposing notional interest. The applicant argued that the security amounts were unrelated to vehicle prices and that booking advances were not linked to wholesale prices. The applicant successfully argued for a waiver of pre-deposit, as the Tribunal found that the applicant had presented a prima facie arguable case, granting a stay on the collection of the differential duty during the appeal process. The decision was in favor of the applicant, allowing the application for waiver of pre-deposit.
1997 (1) TMI 278

Issues:
- Confiscation of gambier under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Violation of procedural fairness and natural justice in the adjudication process

Confiscation of Gambier and Penalty Imposition:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-original that confiscated 72,250 Kg. of gambier under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112 of the same Act. The case involved a consignment of gambier of foreign origin found in a train compartment, leading to the seizure of the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Chemical reports confirmed the nature of the seized goods as gambier. The appellant claimed the goods were of Nepal origin and cleared through proper channels. The appellant argued that the goods were in conformity with the Indo-Nepal Treaty and should not have been confiscated. The appellant also raised procedural issues, including the lack of personal hearing and the non-supply of relied-upon documents during the adjudication process.

Violation of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that they were not provided with an adequate opportunity of personal hearing and were not supplied with relied-upon documents during the adjudication process. The appellant received the notice of the hearing on the same day as the scheduled hearing, leading to a lack of effective opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the denial of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs for a fresh decision. The Commissioner was directed to provide the relied-upon documents to the appellant and afford them a proper opportunity of personal hearing. The appellant was granted the liberty to present all legal and factual arguments before the adjudicating authority in the fresh proceedings. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.
1997 (1) TMI 277

The appeal was filed against a personal penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. The appellant was accused of abetting smuggling of currency, but the evidence did not prove abetment in taking the currency out of India. The Tribunal found no case against the appellant and set aside the penalty order. The appeal was allowed.
1997 (1) TMI 276

The Collector of Central Excise & Customs appealed against a decision regarding a limitation issue. The Department's appeal was dismissed as they did not challenge the limitation issue earlier. The Department cannot succeed if the claim is barred by limitation, even if they have a good case on merits. The appeal was dismissed.
1997 (1) TMI 275

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Modvat Credit on RFO and LDO used for generating electricity.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57A and its Explanation clauses.
3. Eligibility of inputs used as fuel for Modvat Credit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Modvat Credit on RFO and LDO used for generating electricity:
The appellants are engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products and availed Modvat Credit for Residual Fuel Oil (RFO) and Low Density Oil (LDO) used in Diesel Generating (D.G.) sets to generate electricity for captive consumption. The Additional Collector and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) denied the Modvat Credit on the grounds that RFO and LDO were not used directly in the manufacture of final products but in generating electricity, which is not an excisable commodity.

2. Interpretation of Rule 57A and its Explanation clauses:
The appellants argued that Rule 57A, particularly its Explanation clause (c), includes "inputs used as fuel" for Modvat Credit. They contended that the electricity generated by D.G. sets using RFO and LDO is used in the manufacture of final products, thus qualifying for Modvat Credit. The department, however, argued that the inputs must be directly used in manufacturing the final products and that electricity, being non-excisable, does not qualify under the rule.

3. Eligibility of inputs used as fuel for Modvat Credit:
The appellants supported their argument by citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, which held that operations integrally connected with manufacturing and carried out with the aid of power fall under the term "manufacture." They also referred to the Larger Bench judgment in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which stated that the explanation clause of Rule 57A is self-contained and complete, including inputs used as fuel.

Judgment Analysis:

The tribunal considered the arguments and records, noting that the term "in or in relation to the manufacture of the said final product" in Rule 57A has been interpreted in various judgments. The tribunal found that the inputs RFO and LDO, used to generate electricity for operating Electric Arc Furnaces and rolling mills, are essential for manufacturing iron and steel products. Therefore, the generation of electricity as an intermediary product should not prevent granting Modvat Credit.

The tribunal emphasized that the explanation clause (c) of Rule 57A, added by Notification No. 4/94, includes "inputs used as fuel," and the addition of clause (d) with the conjunctive word "and" further clarifies the eligibility of such inputs. The tribunal concluded that the interpretation of "inputs used as fuel" should include all types of fuel generating heat, including electricity generated by D.G. sets using RFO and LDO.

The tribunal rejected the department's restrictive interpretation and held that the Modvat Credit on RFO and LDO used to generate electricity for manufacturing final products is allowable. The tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals.