TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They obtained Central Excise L-4 for availing of Modvat credit of duty under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The department found that they were utilising Polypropelene HDPE for the purpose of testing and trial of the final product i.e. plastic extrusion machines manufactured by them. Jurisdictional Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division-VI, Mumbai-II passed orders disallowing of Modvat credit on Prolypropelene and HDPE on the grounds that these products are not being used in relation to the manufacture of plastic extrusion machines as these materials are used for testing and trial of these machines after they are manufactured. The other ground was that Polypropelene and HDPE do not form part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct in its performance conforms to the customers specifications. The Id. Counsel contended that this testing is part and parcel of the manufacturing process for production of the extrusion machines and without this testing the respondents will not be in a position to market the final product. The ld. Counsel relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 wherein the Larger Bench has held that the expression used in relation to the manufacture of the final product occurring in Rule 57A has been used to widen and expand the scope, meaning and content of the expression inputs so as to attract also goods which do not enter directly or indirectly into the finished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of Cen. Excise - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 wherein the High Court had held that it does not matter that the goods are used in the machinery or for the purpose of the machinery to be considered as an input for modvat purposes. Therefore in the present case the Polypropelene and HDPE which are used for the purpose of testing plastic extrusion machines to ensure that they are as per the individual s specification of customers, would fit in as inputs by the wider ambit of the expression in relation to the manufacture of the final product as given by the Larger Bench in the above said decision. Applying that ratio, therefore, to the facts of the present case we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
