9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The respondents herein manufacture rigid plastic laminates falling under T.I. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff and during the process of manufacture they use BOPP film (Biaxially Oriented Polypropelene film) falling under T.I. 15A(2) as separators. Sheets of BOPP cut to rectangular shape of suitable sizes are used to separate consecutive layers of rigid plastic laminates during the process of compression under heat and pressure. A particular film can be used repeatedly for a number of operations before being discarded. 3. The respondents were availing of proforma credit of duty paid on BOPP film and utilising the same to pay duty on the final product i.e. rigid plastic laminates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm part of the final product, this need not be always so. The Central Government has the power to specify the final product covered by the rule and the conditions regarding the tariff item and remission of duty being specifically mentioned, are adequate protections against misuse of the concession, any, for instance, by a claim for set off of excisable fuel used for the manufacture of a product specified under Rule 56A(1). In any view of the matter, the four conditions of Rule 56A were complied with in these cases. Even assuming that the word "manufactured from" was restrictive in scope, its amendment by "in the manufacture of ...are used" puts the matter beyond doubt. If the Central Government in its wisdom grants and exemption to specifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Southern Regional Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seshasayee Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Madras - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 193 in which the Bench held that what is thought of in Rule 56A is only raw material and not any material. This decision which was rendered on 11-2-1985, was not brought to the notice of the lower appellate authority at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. However, there is a series of decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue of eligibility for proforma credit. In the case of CCE, Calcutta v. M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. - 1988 (2) SCALE 240 = 1989 (39) E.L.T. 169 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that nameplates put on fans have certain value and therefore the value added for accretion of nameplate was en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... East End Paper Industries Ltd. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 as "anything that enters into and forms part of manufacturing process or is required to make the article marketable".
9. In the instant case,, there is no dispute that BOPP film is used as separators in the manufacture of the final product viz. rigid plastic laminates. Therefore, applying the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court (supra), the benefit of proforma credit is available in respect of BOPP film in terms of Rule 56A. The benefit of Notification 71/71 is also admissible as BOFP film is covered by the term "any plastic material".
10. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and uphold the same. The appeal is thus dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
