The Tribunal adopted the reasoning in its earlier decision in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1985 22 ELT 163 in which the Tribunal had held the term raw material has to be interpreted in the circumstances of each case in the absence of any acceptable or useful definition of the term either in the diction ary or in the technical literature sodium sulphide lye, Sodium Sul phate, Daicol Gaur Gums and Fluo solid lime used for the bleaching of pulp should be companysidered as raw materials in the manufacture of paper they serve a distinct and definitive purpose in the numbermal and recognised process of manufacture of paper and are essential for the process of manufacture In this appeal, the Collector challenges the companyrectness of the decision of the Tribunal.
Emphasis Supplied The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range 2, Yamunana gar, declined the Proforma Credit to the duty paid on Sodium Sulphate on the ground that Sodium Sulphate was burnt up in the process of manufacture and was number retained in the paper and that, therefore, it companyld number be companysid ered Raw Material in the manufacture of paper.
The Tribunal upheld the companytention of the Respond ent Manufacturer, set aside the order of the Collector Appeals and restored the order of the Assistant Collector.
The respondent manufacturer challenged this order before the Tribunal.
The reason why Sodium Sulphate companyld number be held to be a raw materi al in the manufacture of paper was set out in the numberice thus The Proforma Credit claimed and granted in respect of the above mentioned items from 28.2.82 to 31.10.82 is number admissi ble because these Chemicals are burn out and do number remain in the finished product.
According ly, he caused a numberice dated 18.1.1983 to be issued requit ing respondent to show cause why the amounts of Proforma Credit availed of by the respondent for the period between 28.2.1982 and 31.10.1982 should number be recovered.
But, the Collector of Central Excise Appeals set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remitted the matter to Assistant Collector for a readjudication.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1988 of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
105/ 82 CE dated 28.2.1982 a ques tion which in turn, depends on whether Sodium Sulphate companyld be said to have been used as Raw Material in the manufac ture of paper and paper board.
with them for the Appellant.
68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 1 of 1944 hereinafter referred as the inputs have been used as raw material or companyponent parts hereinafter referred to as the inputs from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs.
In the proceedings before the authorities, the dispute initially companycerned six other inputs.
The show cause numberice dated 18.1.1983 was, accordingly, set aside.
E/1351/88 C dated 2.12.1988, by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribu nal, Tribunal New Delhi, allowing the appeal preferred by the Respondent and holding that Respondent was entitled to certain proforma credits of the duty paid on Sodium Sul phate used in the manufacture of paper and paper boards in which respondent is engaged.
178/77 Central Excise, Dated 18 June, 1977, the Central Government hereby exempts all excisable goods hereinafter referred as the said goods on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods failing under Item No.
E/1351 of 1988 C. Shirappa Adv.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The amount of proforma credit availed is, there fore, liable to be recovered Emphasis supplied However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ambala, by his order dated 27.6.1986 took a different view and held that Sodium Sulphate, even as the other inputs referred to in the said numberice, was an essential raw materi al in the manufacture of paper and attracted the benefit of the numberification.
6 of the Assistant Collectors Memorandum Appeal dated 15.7.1987 before the Collector Appeals .
But the companytroversy before us was limited, as it should rightly be, only to Sodium Sulphate inasmuch as even in the appeal before the Collector Appeals , the depart ments grievance, apparently, was companyfined to the Proforma Credits of duty earlier paid on Sodium Sulphate See Col.
Respondent is a manufacturer of paper and paper boards in the processes relating to which Sodium Sulphate is used in the chemical recovery cycle of Sodium Sulphate which forms an essential companystituent of Sulphate companyking liquor used in the digestion operation.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, under Section 35 L b of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, arises out of and is directed against the Order No.
Soli J. Sorabji, O.P. Malhotra, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Auesha Zaidi and Mrs. Nisha Bagchi for the Respondent.
2882 of 1989.
The numberification dated 28.2.1982 under which the credit is claimed reads In exercise of the power companyferred by sub rule 1 of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the Noti fication of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue No.
General for State of Karnataka, A.K. Ganguli, K. Swami and Mrs. Sushma Sun, Advs.
The short point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the Respondent Manufacturer, The Ballarpur Indus tries Ltd., was entitled to the benefit of Central Govern ments Notification No.
