1986 (5) TMI 188 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "raw material" under Notification 201/79-C.E.
2. Jurisdiction of the Bench to hear the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of guar gum as a raw material for availing input duty relief under Notification 201/79-C.E. The appellant, engaged in paper manufacturing, sought permission to set-off duty on guar gum used in paper production. The Assistant Collector rejected the request, stating that guar gum did not qualify as a raw material for paper manufacturing. The Collector (Appeals) overturned this decision, relying on a previous Tribunal order. The appellant argued that the term "raw material" was not defined in the notification and should be interpreted in the ordinary sense. They highlighted the role of guar gum in enhancing paper strength and binding properties. The Tribunal agreed with the Madras Bench's view that "raw material" must be interpreted case by case. Considering guar gum's function in paper production, akin to resin, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, dismissing the appeal.

2. The jurisdiction of the Bench to hear the appeal was challenged by the JDR, claiming that no issues of duty rate or valuation were involved. However, after deliberation, the Bench concluded that it had jurisdiction over the matter. The arguments put forth by both sides were considered, leading to the decision that the Bench was competent to adjudicate on the appeal. This ruling affirmed the authority of the Bench to address the dispute despite the absence of duty rate or valuation issues, emphasizing the broader scope of jurisdiction in such matters.