TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not involve any question regarding classification, valuation or rate of duty. As such the matter lies within the jurisdiction of this Bench. 4. The Bench found that this submission was correct and accordingly held that the jurisdiction to hear the matter was with this Bench. 5. The learned counsel submitted that they were engaged in the manufacture of Textile Fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastic material. They use release paper in the process of lamination in the Textile Fabrics for which they have availed modvat credit, after filing a declaration which has been approved by the Assistant Collector. 6. Subsequently the Assistant Collector disallowed this credit on the ground that it is not an input. The releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was time barred for the period prior to 27-8-1987 inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 57-I are required to be read with Section 11A as held in a number of cases by the Tribunal including (1) 1986 (26) E.L.T. 42 CEGAT (2) 1987 (31) E.L.T. 781 CEGAT (3) 1988 (38) E.L.T. 523 CEGAT - Kusum Products Ltd. v. Collector (4) 1988 (40) E.L.T. 475 - In Re : Dhatu Sanskar P. Ltd. (5) 1990 (47) E.L.T. 132 - Collector v. TELCO (6) 1990 (15) ETR 388 CEGAT (7) 1990 (16) ETR 306 CEGAT (WRB) (8) 1990 (16) ETR 317 CEGAT (WRB) (9) 1990 (47) E.L.T. 704 CEGAT (WRB) - Collector v. Memory Steels P. Ltd. (10) 1990 (48) E.L.T. 518 CEGAT - Bakeman s Home Products P. Ltd. v. Collector (11) 1990 (48) E.L.T. 520 CEGAT (WRB) - Collector v. Bharat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT (9) 1985 ECR 862 CEGAT 19. It was also his submission that whereas the Assistant Collector had disallowed the credit on one ground namely that release paper does not form part of the final product, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the order on a different ground namely that it was hit by the exclusion clause being in the nature of an appliance/apparatus. 20. It was his contention that both Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) were incorrect and the modvat has been rightly availed. 21. The learned SDR stated that the learned counsel is correct in pointing out that the Assistant Collector had disallowed on one ground and the Collector (Appeals) on a different one. 22. In so far as the Assistant Collector s point regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not necessary for us to enter into the details of the arguments and the citations on this point. 28. As regards the second question as to whether the material could be considered as an equipment or appliance we observe that the department has not produced any material to show that the silica coated release paper as considered as appliance or equipment either in the technical field or in the commercial parlance or both. 29. The learned counsel s arguments that it is classified as paper for Customs purposes is by itself not sufficient to hold otherwise, inasmuch as an appliance or equipment could be one made of paper also. However the issue as to what constitutes equipment/appliance has already been considered at length and decided by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
