S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President

1. These appeals have been filed against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.

2. Both the sides submitted that in all these appeals issues regarding admissibility or otherwise of Modvat credit in respect of the items in question are involved.

3. These items and their particulars have been shown in the chart filed by the respondents and agreed to by the learned DR and incorporated in the form of annexures to this order.

4. On 15-2-1991 both the sides stated that as regards items 1 to 7 in Annexure I in the issue involved relates to deemed credit in respect of these items which appear in the deemed credit order of 7-4-1986 (prior to amendment) which were wholly exempted from duty under conditional notifications and had been purchased from the market. This issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in series of orders, the latest being A/532-542/90-NRB dated 20-12-1990 and therefore similar orders may be passed.

5. As regards items at S. Nos. 8 to 12 (Annx. I), the learned DR stated that they are not used as inputs for the manufacture of final products but are only used as materials for producing sand moulds and sand cores and therefore Modvat was not available in respect of these items as held in the Tribunal's order in the case of Muzaffarnagar Steels reported in 1990 (44) E.L.T. 552 and Mysore Kirloskar Limited reported in MANU/CC/0005/1990 : (Tri.)

6. The learned counsel contended that these sand moulds and cores are not apparatus or equipment in the normal sense of the term and they are not paying any duty thereon. The items 8 to 12 are used in connection with the production of these moulds and cores which are themselves used for giving appropriate shapes i.e. for casting.

7. They have filed written technical write up on the process of manufacture which may be taken note of. Further the term used in the case of Modvat order is inputs 'used in relation to the manufacture'. These cores and moulds are distinguishable from other types of cores and moulds which may fall within the category of equipment and appliances. Hence, these sand cores and sand moulds should be distinguished from other types and should be considered as items used in relation to manufacture of valves and corks.

8. In the alternative he would also draw our attention to Madurai Collectorate Trade Notice No. 163/88 as amended and that of other Collectorates reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T.-T9 which refer to items used in the manufacture of sand moulds and state that credit of duty paid on such inputs would be available if the same are not fully exempted from Central Excise duty; And full exemption of duty came only by way of Notification No. 381/86 dt. 29-7-1986. He pleaded that the Modvat credit is required to be given on resin coated sand as well as other items on the same analogy.

9. In so far as Nickel and Tin items 13-14 are concerned it was submitted by the learned counsel that though the department has not taken up the issue in their appeal they have filed cross-objections. The Collector (Appeals) had not upheld their request in respect of four appeals, namely E/312 to 317/88. However, he [The Collector (Appeals)] had remanded the matter in respect of other four appeals namely, E/2791 to 2794/88.

10. It was their contention that these items had been purchased by them from MMTC and they had produced the invoices. The Asstt. Collector had disallowed the credit on the ground that certificates have not been produced.

11. However, production of these invoices was sufficient in terms of Trade Notice dt. 25-11-1986 of Bombay-I. This Trade Notice has been issued after the period to which the case pertains. Further even if in those days only certificates were acceptable, had they only been told that certificates are required instead of invoices they would have definitely procured and produced them.

12. In fact they have already obtained them and filed them with their cross-objection along with an application under Rule 23. Ther