TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference has been made in view of the conflicting decisions as reported in the 1997 (96) E.L.T. 323, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 307 and 1994 (70) E.L.T. 788, on the eligibility of input credit on "Grinding Wheels" 2.The matter was heard on 29-3-2000. When the case was called, no body was present for the Appellants. Shri S.S. Srivastava, ld. SDR for the department reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relied upon Singh Alloys - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 (Cal.) to submit that classification of inputs received is relevant to determine the eligibility of Modvat. 3.The Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings are :- "The Assistant Collector has disallowed the credit on the ground that the "Grinding Wheel" cannot be treated as an input for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of iron and steel products." 4.From the materials on the record, it is found that the use of the 'Grinding Wheels' has been accepted to be in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. It would, therefore, qualify for the definition of input, if it is not one of the items covered by the exclusion clause in the explanation to Rule 57A. 5.An analysis of the decisions cited in the reference, shows that the item 'Grinding Wheel' has been understood as follows : (a) (i) Goetze India Ltd. 1997 (96) E.L.T. 323. The Bench unanimously held, honing stone/stick to be only a part of grinding machine and therefore eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57A. (ii) Batliboi Co. 1998 (97) E.L.T. 307. 'Grinding Wheels' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as grinding belts are in the nature of manufacturing equipment and are not in the nature of essential ingredients used in the "manufacturing process" as distinct from "manufacturing apparatus." I, therefore, agree with the Hon'ble Vice President that the32. Modvat Credit is not admissible in the said item as these have been wrongly declared as 'raw materials' the longer period has been rightly.......". Thus, the ld.Third Member has come to a finding to deny the credit on the basis of the impugned items being in the nature of manufacturing equipment. From the above, it is clear that there exists no conflict of views with regard to 'grinding wheels' being parts of machines. 6.The Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case, has, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... glomerated abrasive have been permanently bonded (e.g. cutting discs of metal, etc. fitted with rim or with a series of peripheral inserts of abrasive material). The Heading also covers abrasive elements for hones, whether or not they are mounted in the carriers required for their fixation in the body of the hone. It should, however, be noted that certain abrasive tools are excluded and fall in chapter 82. The latter chapter, however, covers only those tools with cutting teeth, flutes, grooves, etc. which retain their identity and function even after application of the abrasive material (i.e. tools which, unlike those of this heading, could be put to use even if the abrasive had not been applied). Saws with cutting teeth covered with abra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 156; Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ors. : AIR (1988) SC 782 = 1988 (36) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.)]. The Court also observed in paragraph 22 of the judgment that "The Tribunal has erred in seeking to limit the meaning of the word 'inputs' to those items which go into the steel ingot completely overlooking the phrase 'in relation to' in the definition in the major clause of the explanation". The Hon'ble High Court also took note of the definition of various items like apparatus, appliance, equipment, machine, machinery, plant and tool as contained in the McGraw Hills Dictionary in coming to the conclusion that the items involved in the Singh Alloys Steel Ltd. case did not come in those categories. As the present appeals also involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Calcutta - I reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). It held as under in paragraph 26 :- "26. The language of exclusion clause (i) is plain and clear. It carves out "machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances.....". These expressions indicate a self-contained unit, complete unit or whole unit but not any part thereof, unless of course, such part is also a complete unit in itself. The intention to exclude parts also along with machines, machinery and such other goods cannot be gathered from the language used, nor is it spelled out by necessary implication." The above decision of the Tribunal was approved by the Patna High Court in its judgement in the case of Collr. of C.Ex., Patna v. Tata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
