Per S.K. Bhatnagar :

This is a Department's appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 14.8.89.

2. The respondents have sent a letter dated 6.1.97 requesting the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits and briefly indicating their written submissions on the point.

3. We have, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned Departmental Representative.

4. Learned DR stated that the basic issue involved in this case is whether the input 'Litharge' used as a catalyst in the process of manufacture of 'Alkyd Resin' by the respondents was entitled to the benefit of notification No. 201/79-CE dated 4.6.79 as amended by notification No. 105/82 dated 28.2.82.

5. The Assistant Collector had allowed the benefit and the Collector (Appeals) has dismissed the Department's appeal. However, it was the Department's contention that the authorities below have erred in their judgement in as much as Litharge is not being used as a raw material or a component part but admittedly, only as a Catalyst whereas the notification No. 201/79-CE (as amended) is confined to those inputs which are used as raw material or component. It was, therefore, their contention that the benefit cannot be extended to a Catalyst. In this connection, he would in particular draw attention to the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE, Bombay Vs. Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 1997 (90) ELT 225= 1997 (18) RLT 834 (CEGAT-B) in which it has been held that Nickel Catalyst and Nickel Aluminium Alloy powder used as a catalyst in the manufacture of stearic acid were neither raw materials nor component parts of the finished product and hence, they were not eligible for benefit of set-off under notification No. 201/79-CE as amended by notification No. 105/82-CE.

6. The authorities below have referred to certain orders of the Tribunal but it was their contention that the item being in the nature of a catalyst, it has to be treated differently than other items which are treated as raw materials or components and in this connection, the discussion during the course of last hearing had centered round the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 1989 (43) ELT 804 (S.C.) and it was his submission that the Tribunal has consistently taken the same view in respect of the Catalyst ending up with the latest Tribunal's orders cited by him.

7. The Tribunal's orders cited by the A.C. are older orders whereas he is relying upon the latest orders of the Tribunal as reflected in the order passed as late as 1997 and therefore, he would pray that the impugned orders may be set aside.

8. He would also like to cite the following orders:-