Full Judgment
2. It is urged in the appeal that the said decision of the Collector (Appeals) is erroneous as the material in question acts as a carrier/conveyor belt of plastisol on to fabric. This is capable of use 4 to 5 times and would satisfy the definition of apparatus or instrument. Since apparatus and instrument are covered by the exclusion clause in the definition of input under Rule 57A, Modvat credit would not be available, it has been pleaded.
3. Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR is present on behalf of the appellant Collector. The respondents are not represented though notice had been issued to them by registered post on 10-4-1996. We proceed to dispose of the matter after hearing Shri Mewa Singh and perusal of the record.
4. The learned SDR reiterated the submissions contained in the appeal.
We have taken note of the same. We find that the point taken in the appeal questioning the order-in-appeal is that the release paper acts as a carrier/conveyor belt for transfer of plastisol on to fabric. Such a function of transferring of a material apparently to impart a design on the fabric does not indicate that it functions as a conveyor belt which is meant for carrying certain material from one place to another.
Moreover, nothing turns on the ground urged in the appeal that release paper does not lose its identity in the first instance and is capable of use 4 to 5 [times]. The nature of function of release paper, as discussed in the proceedings before the authorities below, which have been very briefly referred to in the present appeal also, do not make out its identity as an apparatus or instrument or any of the other excluded items in Rule 57A or any other extruded types of goods for the purposes of defining inputs. The Collector (Appeals) has correctly gone by the Tribunal decision in Northern India Leather Mfg. Co. Ltd. v.CCE. We find that this has been reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 380. It was held in the said decision that release paper does not merely act as a releasing agent but also transfers some material to the final product and transfer of these materials is necessary for obtaining the end product and in that way some part thereof is also getting into the product stream of the final product. We have already observed that the stand taken in the appeal that the objected input is capable of use 4 to 5 times is no bar for its eligibility for availment of Modvat. We find that the Tribunal in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. v. CCE [Order No. 148/89-C, dated 5-4-1989] and CEAT Tyres India Ltd. v. CCE [Order No. 87/90-C, dated 24-5-1990] held that air bags/carrier bags and bladders used in the manufacture of tyres are eligible for Modvat and that they cannot be taken to appliances/apparatus/equipment. Appeals by Revenue against the Tribunal decisions in these cases as also in another case of Modi Rubber Ltd. -1993 (68) E.L.T. A157 have been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In CCE v. Weldekar Laminates Pvt. Ltd. - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 538 and La-Bel Laminates v. CCE -1991 (56) E.L.T.757, BOPP films used as separating medium while putting the sheets into the press were held to be eligible for Modvat and that merely because an input is capable of repeated use, it does not get barred under Rule 57A. In view of the position discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.