1. Appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, dated 12-11-1980 in C. No. V/58/107/80.
2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri K.P. Jagadeesan, Advocate for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri J.M.K. Sekhar, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following Order : 3. A revision application filed before the Government of India against the order of the Appellate Collector referred to above has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. By order C. No. V/68//30/345/78, dated 14-12-1979, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry, held that silicon carbide tiles and silicon bars are not materials which go into the manufacture of insulators and hence are not entitled to the benefit of the procedure under Rule 5 6A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they are more in the nature of machinery. On appeal, the Appellate Collector upheld the order of the Assistant Collector noting that the two items are used in one of the processes but not in the manufacture of insulators ; therefore, it cannot be said that they are used for the manufacture of insulators in the context in which the words 'for manufacture' are used in the scheme of the entire chapter and rules therein.
5. Before us, the advocate for the appellants explained how the silicon carbide tiles and silicon bars are actually used in the loading of cars which move through the kiln wherein insulators are fired, a process in the manufacture of insulators. The bars are placed at the bottom of the car on which the goods to be fired are placed and the bars are used as vertical supports at the corners between successive layers. Unlike an item like a trolley, these get used up during the course of firing. The advocate referred to the wording of Rule 56A(2) and pointed out that unlike in the case of Notification No. 201/79 which deals with a somewhat similar situation, the goods which can avail of exemption are "materials or component parts" as against the term 'raw material' used in the Notification 201/79. The 'material' is wide enough to cover the goods in question.
6. The SDR, on the other hand, drew our attention to Rule 56A(2)(a) wherein it is clarified that 'material' referred to is 'raw material or component parts'.
7. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. Rule 56A grants a concession in respect of materials and component parts used in the manufacture of notified excisable goods. In that case, duty already paid on such materials and component parts is allowed to be used towards part payment of duty on finished articles. We note that the term 'material' occurs along with the term "component part". By association, one could consider that what is referred to as 'material' is of the same type as 'component part'. Further in dealing with permission to take provisional credit in respect of material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished goods, it is stated that "a manufacturer can take credit in respect, of the duty paid on such raw material or component parts ..". The use of the words 'raw material' in referring to such material would also strengthen the view that what is thought of in Rule 56A is only raw material and not any material. Interpreting the term material as referrable to any and everything used in the manufacture of a finished excisable product may well mean grant of such concession to, for example, diesel oil used as fuel or machinery used in the manufacture of items and the like. We also note that the tiles form the floor of the trolley so that the very high temperatures under which the trolley moves does not affect the insulators loaded on to the trolley. The bars serve to hold up different layers of parts loaded on the trolley. This would suggest that both the tiles and bars are really removable parts of the trolley it elf, assembled in situ. Because of the nature of use, they are made of refractory material. They are thus more akin to the trolley which, as we have observed earlier, cannot be treated as a part for purposes of Rule 56A' Considering the material on record as a whole, we find that the orders of the authorities below are maintainable on facts and in law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.