ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. By this application, the department seeks to set aside the conclusion of the Collector (Appeals) that steel shots which are used in the process known as “shot blasting” which is performed to remove rust, soil etc. from steel sheets are inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A and that therefore Modvat credit can be taken.
2. The Departmental Representative contends that shot blast are nothing but tools which are essential item and that they are repeatedly used.
3. In its decision in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I – 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) the Larger Bench of this Tribunal had occasion to consider the meaning of the expression “tools” occurring in the Explanation to Rule 57A. Following definition of ‘tool’ has been reproduced from the dictionaries :
“Any device, instrument or machine for the performance of an operation”
(McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, IV Edition)
“A portable and usually hard-held instrument that is used to increase the efficiency of a work effort.”
(Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology)
“An instrument of manual operation, like a human saw plane, file or the like used to facilitate machanical operations, as distinguished from an appliance moved by and regulated by machinery”
(Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition Vol. 7A).
4. Considering all these definitions indicate that if something to be cosidered as tool it must be complete and capable for performing the operation for which it is presented. There is no dispute that steel shots under consideration cannot by itself perform the function of removing the impurities or protuburence on the sheets which subjected to. These shots are thrown at considerable velocity by shot blasting machine and it is the extract of the impact caused by facility that causes the rough particles to be loosened from the surface. By themselves, the shots cannot be functioning mentions (sic). They are atmost parts of tools. That being the case, they would not fall within the scope of Explanation to Rule 57A as has been held in the Larger Bench decision cited above and therefore I decline to interfere. Appeal dismissed.