Full Judgment
2. The Respondents sought permission under Rule 56-A for availment of proforma credit in respect of the Polypropylene Sheets and BOPP Film, for their final product decorative and industrial laminated sheets. The permission was refused on the ground that this were not raw material and components and permission under Rule 56-A could be granted only for the raw materials and components, in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), finding given by the adjudicating authority was set aside, and it was held that the items need not find part m the finished product, and so long as they are used in the manufacture of the finished product, the permission under Rule 56-A could not be denied.
The direction was therefore issued for granting permission under the said provisions. The department has felt dissatisfied and have therefore filed the present appeal.
3. Shri K. M Mondal, the Ld. SDR has submitted that there is a distinction between the provisions contained under Rule 56-A, and Rule 57-A in as much as under Rule 56-A, benefit for proforma credit is available only to the raw material and components used in the final product, whereas in Rule 57-A the benefit is extended to all the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of product. In his submission, the polypropylene sheets and BOPP film, are used as a separator and they do not go as raw material or components in manufacture of industrial laminated sheets, and hence, benefit under Rule 56-A was not available. Shri K. M. Mondal, also pleads that now Rule 56-A as stood deleted and even if the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is confirm the same only remains on paper and no material benefit could accrue to the Respondents.
4. Shri Willingdon the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents refers to the decision of the CEGAT Special Bench-A' in Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune v. Formica India Division 1991 (35) ECR 203 (CEGAT SB-C), where polypropylene sheets and BOPP Film, have been held as eligible for availment of proforma credit under Rule 56-A, when used for the purpose of manufacture of industrial laminated sheets. In his submission the issue has been squarely settled and the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is in confirmity with the same.
5. Shri K. M. Mondal, the Ld. SDR in reply submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal have not examined the aspect from the angle as projected by him.
6. Considering the submissions the issue has stood settled by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and therefore has to be accepted as the settled position. At this stage there is no contrary decision produced and therefore, this will operate as a binding, based on the said order, therefore, finding of the Collector (Appeals) does not call for any interference.
7. So far as the order becoming infructuous, is concerned this Bench has only to consider the legality of the order passed and consequential reliefs that should automatically follow, and therefore even if it may amount to an infructuous orders, the appeal cannot be allowed merely on that ground if otherwise the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) appears to be just and proper.
8. Under the circumstances the appeal filed by the Department is rejected.