BHANSALI ENGG. POLYMERS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the above captioned four appeals. The first there appeals bearing Nos. E/577, 578 and 1024/03 -NB (S) have been preferred against the common order -in -appeal dated 17.2.2003, while the fourth appeal No. E/1626/63 -NB(S) has been filed against the order -in -appeal dated 1.5.2003. The issue involved in all these appeals being common, are being disposed of by this single order.

(2.) The issue involved in all these appeals is, as to whether the movat credit is available to the appellants on the HDPE Bags/PP Jumbo Jags or not. According to the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of ABS bags, these bags are used as inputs by them. In some of these bags, they firstly store the ABS Powder and thereafter from those bags, the said powder is transferred for converting it into final product i.e. ABS Polymers Pellets. The authorities below have denied the credit by holding the same as packing material and not inputs, which stands excluded from the purview of Rule 57 -A of the Rules.

(3.) I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The question, as to whether the bags in question, referred to above, can be termed as inputs or not, in the instant case, is a question of facts and law. This question requires determination by keeping in view the use of the bags in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. The learned counsel has referred to the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta -I, 1996 (15) RLT 144 (CEGAT) = 1996 (86) ELT 613 (T), wherein the word 'inputs' had been defined and observed that this word has been used in a wider sense, so as to attract the goods which do not enter directly or indirectly into the finished products. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Singh Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, 1993 (66) ELT 594 (Cal.), wherein also the definition of 'input' has been defined by the Court, keeping in view the explanation appended to Rule 57 -A of the rules. But, I find that the ratio of the law laid down in these cases has not been taken note of by the authorities below while deciding the issue. Therefore, the matter deserves to be re -examined in the light of the ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases by the adjudicating authority afresh. The learned counsel, lastly, has also referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Rajashtan State Chemicals Works, 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC), wherein the expression 'manufacture in or in relation to vis -a -vis the goods' had been defined. This judgment of the Apex Court principally relates to the interpretation of the notification which allowed exemption in respect of the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture.