Material used for testing is eligible for Modvat

Posted on 11 April 2023 Category : Export India

The information provided here is part of Export Import Training course online

Material used for testing is eligible for Modvat

Marketability is an attribute of manufacture.It is an essential criteria for charging duty. Identity of the product and marketability are the twin aspects to decide chargeability. Dutiability of the product depends on whether the product is known to the marke t. The test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges. Marketable means saleable. The test of classification is, how are the goods known in the market.

Is Material used for testing eligible for Modvat credit.
Is material used for testing is an Input of manufactur. What is the term Manufacturer under Central excise rules. Is material used for testing is an excisable goods.

Other posts about Import Export online tutorial

Who is a ‘Manufacturer’ of excisable goods

Consignee “To Order” in Bill of Lading

Difference between DDU and DAP

Difference between Exporter, Shipper and Consignor

Custodian of Cargo at customs bonded CFS

The following latest supre court judgement clarifies:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7152 OF 2004
M/S FLEX ENGINEERING LIMITED — APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
U.P.
— RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.429 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 875 of 2008),
CIVIL APPEAL NO.430 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10759 of 2010)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO.431 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6501 of 2011)
J U D G M E N T
D.K. JAIN, J.:
11. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 875 of 2008, 10759 of 2010
and 6501 of 2011.
2. This batch of appeals, by grant of leave, arises out of
judgments dated 26th August, 2002 in C.E.R. No. 11 of 2001,
11th April, 2007 in C.E.A. No. 10 of 2004, 8th September, 2009
in C.E.A. No. 6 of 2003 and 25th October, 2010 in C.E.R. No. 51
of 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
By the impugned judgments, rendered in the reference
applications filed by the assessee, under Section 35H of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”), the questions
referred by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)
Appellate Tribunal, as it then existed, (for short “the
Tribunal”) have been answered in favour of the revenue.
3. In order to comprehend the controversy at hand, a few
material facts may be noticed. At the outset, it may be noted
that these appeals relate to the period between August 1992
to June 1996.
2The appellant –assessee, a body corporate, claiming to be
pioneers in the concept of flexible packaging, is engaged in the
manufacture of various types of packaging machines, marketed
as Automatic form fill and seal machines (for short “F&S
machines”), classified under chapter heading 8422.00 of the
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short “the
Tariff Act”). The literature placed on record shows that the
assessee has prototype models of F&S machines with technical
details like web width, Roll diameter, Core diameter, typical
material range, the type of material to be packed, etc.
According to the assessee, the machines are ‘made to order’,
inasmuch as all the dimensions of the packaging/sealing
pouches, for which the F&S machine is required, are provided
by the customer. The purchase order contains the following
inspection clause:
“Inspection/Trial will be carried out at your works
in the presence of (sic) our Engineer before
dispatch of equipment for the performance of the
machine.”
3Flexible Laminated Plastic Film in roll form & Poly Paper
which are duty paid, falling under chapter headings 3920.38 and
4811.30 of the Schedule to the Tariff Act, are used for testing,
tuning and adjusting various parts of the F&S machine in terms
of the afore-extracted condition in the purchase order. As the
machine ordered is customer specific, if after inspection by the
customer it is found deficient in respect of its operations for
being used for a particular specified packaging, it cannot be
delivered to the customer, till it is re-adjusted and tuned to
make it match with the required size of the pouches as per the
customer’s requirement. On completion of the above process
and when the customer is satisfied, an entry is made in the RG 1
register declaring the machine as manufactured, ready for
clearance.
4. The assessee filed declarations and availed of the benefit of
Modvat credit in respect of the Flexible Laminated Plastic
Film in roll form & Poly Paper used for testing the F&S
machine. On 4th March, 1993, a notice was issued to the
assessee to show cause as to why the benefit of Modvat credit
4on the above goods be not denied, on the ground that they
have used the said material for the purpose of testing the final
product i.e. the F&S machine which cannot be treated as
inputs as stipulated in Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules,
1944 (for short “the Rules”). On a similar ground, a number
of show cause notices were issued to the assessee covering
the period from August 1992 to June 1996. The assessees’
reply to the show cause notices did not find favour with the
adjudicating authority, who accordingly, denied the benefit
of Modvat credit on the said items. Appeals preferred by the
assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the
Tribunal were also dismissed.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed applications seeking
reference to the High Court on the questions proposed.
However, having failed to persuade the Tribunal that its
orders gave rise to questions of law, the assessee moved the
Allahabad High Court, praying for a direction to the Tribunal
for reference.
56. The High Court partly allowed the application and directed
the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case and refer the
following questions of law for its opinion:
“Q1) Whether, in the circumstances of the
present case, facts of which are not in
dispute, duties paid on material, namely,
plastic films/poly paper used for testing
machines for forming commercial/technical
opinion as to their marketability/
excisability would be eligible to be taken as
credit (sic) under rule 57-A read with
relevant notification?
Q2) Whether such use of material in testing
in view of the purposes mentioned above,
could be said to be used (sic) in the
manufacture of or use in relation to the
manufacture of the final products viz.,
Machines as assembled?”
7. As aforesaid, the High Court has answered both the questions
in the negative, opining that testing the performance of a final
product is not a process of manufacture and therefore,
materials used for testing the performance of the F&S
machine cannot be termed as ‘inputs’ for the purpose of
allowing Modvat credit. According to the High Court,
anything required to make the goods marketable must form a
6part of the manufacture and any raw material or any materials
used for the same would be a component part of the end
product. It has observed that materials used after
manufacture of the final product, viz. the F&S machine, is
complete, is only to detect the deficiency in the final product
and therefore, could not be the goods used in or in relation to
the manufacture of the final product within the meaning of
Rule 57A of the Rules. Hence the present appeals by the
assessee.
8. Assailing the opinion of the High Court, Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee
submitted that the expression “in or in relation to” used in
Rule 57A of the Rules is very wide and is used to expand the
scope, meaning and content of the expression ‘inputs’ so as
to include all inputs so long as these are used “in or in
relation to the manufacture” of finished excisable goods. It
was argued that since the machines are tailor made, as per
the specifications provided by a customer to achieve a
distinct and different result, it is of no use to any other
7customer. Therefore, unless each individual machine is
tested by using the flexible plastic films in the presence of
the customer or his representative, as per the terms of the
contract, to satisfy him that it is capable of being used for a
particular packing as specified by him, the process of
manufacture of the final product cannot be said to be
complete. It was contended that the testing of the machine
being an integral process of the manufacture and
marketability of the final product, particularly in terms of the
specific condition in the contract, the claim for Modvat credit
was admissible on flexible plastic films consumed in the
testing of the F&S machines. It was stressed that to avail of
the Modvat credit in respect of an input, it is not necessary
that such input must be physically present in the finished
product.
9. In support of the proposition that the material used in testing,
for the purpose of verification of certain characteristics of the
final product, is an input in or in relation to the manufacture,
learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this
8Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, Vs. Tara
Agencies1
, Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Delhi-III2
, National Leather Cloth Manufacturing
Company Vs. Union of India & Anr.3 and a decision of the
Bombay High Court in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.
Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Pune4
.
10. Per contra, Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the revenue, supporting the decision of the
High Court, contended that Modvat credit is available only on
the inputs which are actually used in the manufacture of the
final product. According to the learned counsel, testing of a
machine can take place only after the manufacture of the
machine is complete and therefore, any goods used in a
process subsequent to the completion of the process of
manufacture cannot be termed as inputs within the meaning
of Rule 57A of the Rules.
1
(2007) 6 SCC 429
2
(2009) 9 SCC 193 : 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)
3
(2010) 12 SCC 218 : 2010 (256) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)
4
2010 (256) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)
911. Before analysing the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory provisions.
12. The Modvat scheme, introduced with effect from 1st March
1986, was aimed at allowing credit to the manufacturers for
the excise duty paid by them in respect of the inputs used in
the manufacture of the finished product. Rules 57A and 57C
of the Rules, which make a manufacturer eligible to avail of
the credit for the duty paid on the inputs read as follows:
"RULE 57A : Applicability.- (1) The provisions of this
section shall apply to such finished excisable goods
(hereinafter referred to as the “final products”) as the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify in this behalf, for the purpose of
allowing credit of any duty of excise or the additional
duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51
of 1975), as may be specified in the said notification
(hereinafter referred to as the “specified duty”) paid on
the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of
the said final products whether directly or indirectly
and whether contained in the final product or not
(hereinafter referred to as the “inputs”) and for utilising
the credit so allowed towards payment of duty of excise
leviable on the final products, whether under the Act or
under any other Act, as may be specified in the said
notification, subject to the provisions of this section and
the conditions and restrictions that may be specified in
the notification:
1Provided that the Central Government may
specify the goods or classes of goods in respect of
which the credit of specified duty may be restricted.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule, “inputs”
includes—
(a) inputs which are manufactured and used within
the factory of production, in or in relation to, the
manufacture of final products,
(b) paints and packaging materials,
(c) inputs used as fuel,
(d) inputs used for generation of electricity, used
within the factory of production for manufacture of
final products or for any other purpose, and
(e) accessories of the final product cleared alongwith
such final product, the value of which is included
in the assessable value of the final product,
but does not include—
(i) machines, machinery, plant, equipment,
apparatus, tools, appliances or capital goods as
defined in rule 57Q used for producing or
processing of any goods or for bringing about any
change in any substance in or in relation to the
manufacture of the final products;
(ii) packaging materials in respect of which any
exemption to the extent of the duty of excise
payable on the value of the packaging materials is
being availed of for packaging any final products;
(iii) packaging materials or containers, the cost of
which is not included in the assessable value of
the final products under section 4 of the Act; and
1(iv) crates and glass bottles used for aerated waters.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule
(1), the Central Government may, by notification in the
official Gazette, declare the inputs on which declared
duties of excise or additional duty (hereinafter referred
to as ‘declared duty’) paid shall be deemed to have
been paid at such rate or equivalent to such amount as
may be specified in the said notification and allow the
credit of such declared duty deemed to have been paid
in such manner and subject to such condition as may be
specified in the said notification even if the declared
inputs are not used directly by the manufacturer of final
products declared in the said notification, but are
contained in the said final products.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-rule, it
is clarified that even if the declared inputs are used
directly by a manufacturer of final products, the credit
of the declared duty shall, notwithstanding the actual
amount of duty paid on such declared inputs, be
deemed to be equivalent to the amount specified in the
said notification and the credit of the declared duty
shall be allowed to such manufacturer.
Rule 57C. Credit of duty not to be allowed if final
products are exempt.—No credit of the specified duty
paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of a final
product (other than those cleared either to a unit in a
Free Trade Zone or to a hundred per cent ExportOriented Unit) or to a unit in an Electronic Hardware
Technology Park or to a unit in Software Technology
Parks or supplied to the United Nations or an
international organisation for their official use or
supplied to projects funded by them, on which
exemption of duty is available under notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue) No.108/95-Central Excises,
dated the 28th August, 1995 shall be allowed if the final
1product is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise
leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty.”
13. It is manifest that Rule 57A of the Rules entitled a
manufacturer to take credit of the Central Excise duty paid on
the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final
product provided that the input and the finished product are
excisable goods and fall under any of the specified chapters
in the tariff schedule. It is pertinent to note that vide
Notification No.28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29th June 1995, the
said Rule was amended and the phrase “whether directly or
indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not”
was inserted. There is no dispute that in the instant case,
both the F&S machines and the flexible laminated plastic film
and poly paper are excisable. Therefore, the short question
for consideration is whether the said material on which
Modavt credit is claimed by the assessee, not physically used
in the manufacture of the said machine but used for testing
the F&S machines would be covered within the sweep of the
expression “in or in relation to the manufacture of the final
1products”, as appearing in Rule 57A of the Rules. In short,
the bone of contention is as to what meaning is to be assigned
to the expression “in relation to the manufacture of final
products.”
14. In our opinion, apart from the fact that the amended Rule
itself contemplates that physical presence of the input, in
respect of which Modvat credit is claimed, in the final
product is not a pre-requisite for such a claim, even
otherwise this issue is no longer res-integra. In Collector of
Central Excise & Ors. Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. & Ors.5
,
this Court while examining the scope and purport of the
expression “in or in relation to the manufacture of the final
products” observed that these words have been used to
widen and expand the scope, meaning and content of the
expression “inputs” so as to attract goods which do not enter
into finished goods. Speaking for the Bench, S.H. Kapadia, J.
(as his Lordship then was) held as follows:
“11. Lastly, we may point out that in order to
appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of
5
(2007) 7 SCC 347 : 2007 (214) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)
1the Department one needs to interpret the
expression “in or in relation to the manufacture of
final products”. The expression “in the manufacture
of goods” indicates the use of the input in the
manufacture of the final product. The said
expression normally covers the entire process of
converting raw materials into finished goods such
as caustic soda, cement, etc. However, the matter
does not end with the said expression. The
expression also covers inputs “used in relation to
the manufacture of final products”. It is interesting
to note that the said expression, namely, “in
relation to” also finds place in the extended
definition of the word “manufacture” in Section 2(f)
of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short
“the said Act”). It is for this reason that this Court
has repeatedly held that the expression “in relation
to” must be given a wide connotation.
12. The Explanation to Rule 57-A shows an inclusive
definition of the word “inputs”. Therefore, that is a
dichotomy between inputs used in the manufacture
of the final product and inputs used in relation to
the manufacture of final products. The Department
gave a narrow meaning to the word “used” in Rule
57-A. The Department would have been right in
saying that the input must be raw material
consumed in the manufacture of final product,
however, in the present case, as stated above, the
expression “used” in Rule 57-A uses the words “in
relation to the manufacture of final products”.
13. The words “in relation to” which find place in
Section 2(f) of the said Act have been interpreted
by this Court to cover processes generating
intermediate products and it is in this context that it
has been repeatedly held by this Court that if
manufacture of final product cannot take place
without the process in question then that process is
an integral part of the activity of manufacture of the
1final product. Therefore, the words “in relation to
the manufacture” have been used to widen and
expand the scope, meaning and content of the
expression “inputs” so as to attract goods which do
not enter into finished goods.
14. In J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO6
this Court has held that Rule 57-A refers to inputs
which are not only goods used in the manufacture
of final products but also goods used in relation to
the manufacture of final products. Where raw
material is used in the manufacture of final product
it is an input used in the manufacture of final
product. However, the doubt may arise only in
regard to use of some articles not in the
mainstream of manufacturing process but
something which is used for rendering final
product marketable or something used otherwise
in assisting the process of manufacture. This doubt
is set at rest by use of the words “used in relation to
manufacture”.
(Emphasis supplied by us)
15. In Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State
Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan7
, to which a
reference was made in Solaris Chemtech Limited (supra),
this Court had held that any operation which results in the
emergence of the manufactured goods would come within
the ambit of the term manufacture. This is because of the
6
AIR 1965 SC 1310
7
(1991) 4 SCC 473 : 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.)
1words used in Rule 57A, namely, goods used in or in relation
to the manufacture of final products.
16. At this juncture, it would also be apposite to refer to Circular
No.33/33/94/CX.8, dated 4th May 1994, issued by the Central
Board of Excise and Customs, relating to the Modvat scheme.
The relevant part of the Circular reads as under:
“Subject: Instruction regarding Modvat Scheme.
1…..
2. With a view to consolidate the instructions
and streamline of procedures, the following
instructions are issued in supersession of all
the instructions issued on or before 31st
December, 1993, in relation to Modvat -
(i) Modvat credit is available for all excisable goods
used as inputs in or in relation to the
manufacture of finished goods. It is, therefore,
clarified that the input credit is admissible
whether such input is physically present in the
finished excisable goods or not so long such inputs
are used in or in relation to the manufacture of
finished excisable goods. In this connection
definition of the term manufacture as propounded
by the Supreme Court in the Empire Industry’s
case–1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 and C.C.E. v. Rajasthan
State Chemical case – 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444, 448
(S.C.) are quite relevant.
(Emphasis supplied)”
117. It is trite to state that “manufacture” takes place when the raw
materials undergo a series of changes and transformation that
result in the formation of a commercially distinct commodity
having a different name, character and use. It is equally well
settled that physical presence of an input in the final finished
excisable goods is not a pre-requisite for claiming Modvat
credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. It may very well be
indirectly related to manufacture and still be necessary for
the completion of the manufacture of the final product. It
needs little emphasis that the process of manufacture is
complete only when the product is rendered marketable.
Thus, manufacture is intrinsically integrated with
marketability. In this regard it would be profitable to refer to
the following observations of this Court in Union of India &
Ors. Vs. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. & Anr.8
:
“8. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the
cases on the question of marketability, as this Court
has dealt with all relevant cases in A.P. SEB case9
. In
that case, the question was whether electric poles
manufactured with cement and steel for the
appellant Board were marketable. After considering
8
(2002) 7 SCC 435
9
(1994) 2 SCC 428
1various cases on the question of marketability of
goods, Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the Court,
summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 434, para 10)
“10. It would be evident from the facts
and ratio of the above decisions that the
goods in each case were found to be not
marketable. Whether it is refined oil
(non-deodorised) concerned in Union of
India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
Ltd.10 or kiln gas in South Bihar Sugar Mills
Ltd. v. Union of India11 or aluminium cans
with rough uneven surface in Union
Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India12 or
PVC films in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CCE13
or hydrolysate in CCE v. Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprises (P) Ltd.14 the finding
in each case on the basis of the material
before the Court was that the articles in
question were not marketable and were
not known to the market as such. The
‘marketability’ is thus essentially a
question of fact to be decided on the facts
of each case. There can be no
generalisation. The fact that the goods
are not in fact marketed is of no
relevance.”
9. It may be noticed that in the cases referred to in
the passage, quoted above, the reasons for holding
the articles “not marketable” are different, however,
they are not exhaustive. It is difficult to lay down a
precise test to determine marketability of articles.
Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The
10 AIR 1963 SC 791
11 AIR 1968 SC 922
12 (1986) 2 SCC 547
13 (1989) 1 SCC 602
14 (1989) 4 SCC 112
1essence of marketability is neither in the form nor in
the shape or condition in which the manufactured
articles are to be found, it is the commercial identity
of the articles known to the market for being bought
and sold. The fact that the product in question is
generally not being bought and sold or has no
demand in the market would be irrelevant. The
plastic body of EMR does not satisfy the
aforementioned criteria. There are some competing
manufacturers of EMR. Each is having a different
plastic body to suit its design and requirement.

If
one goes to the market to purchase the plastic body
of EMR of the respondents either for replacement or
otherwise one cannot get it in the market because at
present it is not a commercially known product. For
these reasons, the plastic body, which is a part of
EMR of the respondents, is not “goods” so as to be
liable to duty as parts of EMR under para 5(f) of the
said exemption notification.”
(Emphasis supplied by us)
18. In Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Vs. M/s Eastend
Paper Industries Ltd.15, the assessee was manufacturing
different kinds of paper. A question arose whether the
wrapping paper manufactured and used for wrapping the
finished product is a part of manufacture. It was held that
wrapping of finished product by wrapping paper is process
incidental and ancillary to completion of the manufactured
product under Section 2 (f) of Act. Thus, the Court held that,
15 (1989) 4 SCC 244
2anything required to make goods marketable, must form a
part of manufacture and any raw material or any material
used for same would be a component part of the final
product.
19. In Dharampal Satyapal Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Delhi-I, New Delhi16
, the term marketable has been
held to mean saleable, as under:
“18……Marketability is an attribute of manufacture.
It is an essential criteria for charging duty. Identity
of the product and marketability are the twin
aspects to decide chargeability. Dutiability of the
product depends on whether the product is known
to the market. The test of marketability is that the
product which is made liable to duty must be
marketable in the condition in which it emerges.
Marketable means saleable. The test of
classification is, how are the goods known in the
market. These tests have been laid down by this
Court in a number of judgments including Moti
Laminates (P). Ltd. v. CCE17
, Union of India v. Delhi
Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.18 and Cadila
Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CCE19.”
20. Thus, if a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable
and consequently the process of manufacture would not be
16 (2005) 4 SCC 337.
17 (1995) 3 SCC 23
18 (1997) 5 SCC 767
19 (2003) 4 SCC 12
2held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable
on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of
manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will
be considered as inputs and thus, entitled to Modvat credit
under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the present case, as
aforesaid, each machine is tailor made according to the
requirements of individual customers. If the results are not in
conformity with the order, then the machine loses its
marketability and is of no use to any other customer. Thus,
the process of manufacture will not be said to be complete till
the time the machines meet the contractual specifications and
that will not be possible unless the machines are subjected to
individual testing. Even though the revenue has alleged that
the process of manufacture is complete as soon as the
machine is assembled, yet it has not discharged the onus of
proving the marketability of the machines thus assembled,
prior to the stage of testing. Moreover, as has been held in
the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Jaipur20, the burden of proving whether a
20 (2005) 2 SCC 662;
2particular product is marketable or not is on the department
and in the absence of such proof it cannot be presumed to be
marketable. In the absence of the revenue having adduced
any such evidence or contorted the assessee’s claim that the
machines cannot be sold unless testing is done with some
alternative evidence as to their marketability, the stand of the
revenue cannot be accepted.
21. Thus, in our opinion the process of testing the customised
F&S machines is inextricably connected with the
manufacturing process, in as much as, until this process is
carried out in terms of the afore-extracted covenant in the
purchase order, the manufacturing process is not complete;
the machines are not fit for sale and hence not marketable at
the factory gate. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
manufacturing process in the present case gets completed on
testing of the said machines and hence, the afore-stated
goods viz. the flexible plastic films used for testing the F&S
machines are inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the
2final product and would be eligible for Modvat credit under
Rule 57A of the Rules.
22. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the opinion rendered
by the High Court on the questions referred by the Tribunal
cannot be sustained. We hold that the process of testing the
customised machines is integrally connected with the
ultimate production of the final product viz. the F&S machines
and therefore, that process is one in relation to the
manufacture, falling within the sweep of Rule 57A of the
Rules. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned orders are set aside, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
.……………………………………
(D.K. JAIN, J.)
.…………………………………….
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 13, 2012.
ARS
22

The above information is a part of Import Export Training course online

Material used for testing is eligible for Modvat

Discussion Forum