1985 21 ELT 285
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
C.T.A. Pillai, S. Kalyanam, JJ.
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Guntur -Respondent
Appeal No. ED(T)(Mad.) 15 of 1982, 15 of 1982
Decided On : 17-01-1985
Act Referred :CENTRAL EXCISE RULES : R.56(a)
Srinivasamurthy, Chidambaram,S.K. Choudhury
ORDER
1. By a communication C. No. V/68/30/217/80 T2(PF) dated 18-12-1981, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Visakhapatnam, informed the appellants that lignite cannot be granted the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it is not raw material or component part used in the manufacture of ferroalloys. In dealing with an appeal against this order, the Appellate Collector observed that Lignite (Leco) acts only as a reducing agent in the course of manufacture of ferro-alloys and remains as a flux. He, therefore, concurred in the view of the Assistant Collector that lignite is not entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56A as a raw material. A revision application filed against the order of the Appellate Collector before the Government has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for being treated as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.
2. The advocate for the appellants explained that 'Leco' is carbon which is accepted as a reducing agent in the recovery of metal from ore and it promotes function of the material in the production of high carbon ferro manganese and high carbon ferro-silicon.
3. The S.D.R. supported the order of the department on the basis that Lignite is used along with other items of carbon and cannot be treated as the principal source of carbon in the final product.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein. We note that production of ferro-alloys from ores is essentially a process of production. This needs large quantities of carbon in one form or the other and Leco is carbon, commonly known as brown coal. The object of reducing ore cannot be achieved except by the use of brown coal etc., and we consider that it is essentially a raw material in the manufacture of the final product. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, with consequential relief to the appellants.