'
'
"'
···l:
) 4
...
J
)r·
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR
A
v.
M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD., SINC SMELTER, DEBARI DISTT.
UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
MARCH 24, 2004
B
[S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985; Exemption Notification No.217186-
CE dated April 2, 1986:
c
Exemption Notification-Benefits of-Inputs-Lead sheets with header
attached thereon-Tribunal holding lead input sheets eligible for benefits of
the Notification but not the header-On appeal, Held: Notification exempts
inputs only-Since lead/aluminium sheets and not the headers are input, benefits
of Notification would only be available to the sheets.
D
The question which arose in these appeals was as to whether the
benefits of Notification No.217/86-CE dated April 2, 1986, issued by the
Revenue would be available in respect of Lead/Aluminium sheets with
header attached thereto.
E
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I. Notification No.217/86-CE of 1986 only exempts inputs.
It also clarifies that machine, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools
or appliances used for manufacturing and processing of any goods or
bringing about any change in any substance or in relation to a final F
product shall be excluded from the term "inputs". [526-E]
1.2. Headers whether attached to lead or aluminium sheets are not
inputs; since they are not inputs, benefits of the Notification would not be
available to headers. But the sheets are inputs; hence they are entitled to
the benefits of the Notification. [526-G[
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2467of1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 .1.99 of the Central Excise,
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in F.O. No. El •
.
525
I-I
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
A 87/99-B I in A. No. E/2330 of 1992-B I.
~
)
WITH.
C.A. No. 9276 of 2003.
Ranjeet Kumar, Dileep Tandon, Sanjeev Sen and B.K. Prasad for the
B Appellant.
A.R. Madhav Rao, Viswanath Shukla, V. Balachandran, Alok Yadav
and Rajesh Kumar for the Respondents.
(
..
...
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. The question which arises in these two Appeals
is whether the Respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No.
217/86-CE dated 2nd April, 1986. The Tribunal has, in the impugned Orders
without giving any ascertainable reasons, held that the lead input sheet would
be eligible to the benefit of the Notification, but the headers would not be
D
eligible to the benefit of the Notification.
Notification No. 217 /86-CE of 1986 only exempts inputs. It also clarifies
that machine, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances
.#
used for manufacturing and processing of any goods or bringing about any
change in any substance or in relation to a final product shall be excluded
l
E
from the term "inputs". What is questioned before us is the finding of the
Tribunal that the lead anode sheets are eligible to the benefit of the Notification.
It was fairly admitted that sheets would be an input and that if it is
clarified that the Noti~cation only applies to sheets and not to the fin~!
product manufactured after headers are fixed to the sheets, the Deptt. will be
F satisfied. To this there is no objection.
·+
In our view it is clear that headers whether attached to lead or aluminium
sheets are not inputs. As they are not inp!JtS the benefit of the Notification
would not be available to headers. However, the sheets are inputs and they
would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification.
G
These Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order
as to costs.
S.K.S.
Appeals disposed of.
"'"
,
Lex