ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The two issues involved in this appeal are whether silicon spray is a declared input under Rule 57G and whether it is eligible for Modvat credit as an input as per Rule 57A or is a part of machinery/tools.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Polypropylene Filament Yarn. The appellants were taking Modvat credit on the inputs. It was alleged by the Department that silicon spray was not declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G and that it was not an input as provided under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Lower Authorities therefore, denied them the Modvat credit on this item.
3. Shri Jogdeep K. Sablok, Vice President of the appellants’ firm submitted that silicon spray is a surface active agent; that it was classifiable under Tariff Heading 3403.00; that surface active agent classifiable under 3403.00 was declared in their declaration filed under Rule 57G on 11-8-1992. The appellants also submitted that in terms of the technical literature produced by them it was very clear that silicon spray is used for production of synthetic filament yarn. It was also submitted by the appellants that the description of the goods given in the gate passes is mould release preparation/silicon spray. The appellants also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Steriware Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 509 (Tribunal). In support of their contention that silicon spray is an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of polypropylene filament yarn. The appellants also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Titaghar Paper Mills reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 901 (Tribunal). In support of their contention that the decision of the higher judicial authorities are the guiding factor to see that the principles laid down in those decisions are taken into consideration. The appellants, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
4. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, the learned DR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. The two issues placed before me for determination are whether the item described as silicon spray was declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The contention of the appellants is that the silicon spray is nothing but a surface active agent. In support of this contention, the appellants have referred to gate passes as well as the declaration. In the gate passes, the products were described as mould release preparation – silicon spray – 3403.00 and that in their declaration against Item 5 under column input, the declaration reads “5. surface active agent – 3403.00”. I find that surface active agent is a generic term whereas silicon spray is a specific term. Silicon spray, according to the technical literature and the opinion of the experts submitted by the appellants before the lower authorities clearly brings out that silicon spray is a surface active agent and since the classification also was correctly given I hold that silicon spray is one of the surface active agent and therefore, the declaration declared against serial No. 5 under inputs filed under Rule 57G covered silicon spray and therefore, the allegation of misdeclaration is set aside.
6. On the question whether silicon spray is an input used in the manufacture of polypropylene filament yarn or not. The Asstt. Collector, in his order, has held that silicon spray is in the nature of a part of a machinery and appliances and is not an input provided under Explanation to Rule 57A. The Collector (Appeals) more or less agreed with the findings of the adjudicating authority insofar as the use as an input was concerned. In find that the appellants produced technical literature which says that silicon spray provides lubrication to the yarn giving its desirable properties which are very helpful at a later stage. I also observe that the Director of the Technological Institute of Textile and Sciences, Bhiwani has clarified that silicon spray is an essential input for manufacturing polypropylene multifilament yarn and that without the application of this spray, it is not possible to manufacture uniform quality multifilament yarn. As against this, the Revenue has not produced any technical literature, expert opinion. I also observe that this Tribunal in the case of Steriware Pvt. Ltd. supra in paras 7, 8 and 9 clarified the position about the silicon spray as an input. These paragraphs are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
“7. The appellants have furnished a write-up on the application of ‘silicon spray’ in the process of injection moulding. It has been stated that application of silicon spray provides a fine film of silicon oil on the surface of the mould which provides lubrication and results in the automatic release of the moulded component from the cavity and contributes to better productivity. It has also been pointed out that spraying of silicon along with freon gas facilitates the release of the component from the mould surface due to evaporation of freon and lubrication provided by silicon.
8. Having regard to the scientific and technical meaning of the term ‘appliance’ which was referred to in the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Weldeker Laminates (supra) and even on the basis of the common understanding of the term ‘appliance’, I am of the view that ‘silicon spray’ which is in the nature of a chemical cannot be deemed as an ‘appliance’ or ‘equipment’ which are excluded from the purview of the Mod-vat scheme in terms of the ‘Explanation’ to the Notification No. 217/86. In a number of decisions of the Tribunal it has been held that for availing Modvat it is not necessary that the input should form a part of the final product. For these reasons and also for the reason that use of ‘silicon spray’ on the moulds during the injection moulding adds to the output of the machine and improves the quality of the moulded product, it has to be held that it is an input used in the manufacture of the final product.
9. In view of the above discussion and on the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision quoted above the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequent relief to the appellants.”
7. Having regard to the above discussion and also the case-law cited supra, I hold that silicon spray is an input used in relation to the manufacture of polypropylene filament yarn.
8. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.