vil Appeal No 1630 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 211
I988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No 
232 183 BI in Order No 
18 988 B  G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General K Swami and Mrs Sushma Suri for the Appellant
Ravinder
Narain
PK Ram and DN Misra for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is an appeal against the decision and order of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal under Section 35Lb of the hereinafter called the Act 
The respondent is the manufacturer of electric fans and brought into it9 factory nameplates under tariff item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff
The nameplates were affixed to the fans before marketing them
The respondent claimed the benefit of proforma credit in terms of PG NO 1000 Notification No 20179 dated 4th June 1979 which was for the purpose of relief on the duty of excise paid on goods falling under Tariff Item 68 when these goods are used in the manufacture of other excisable goods
The said notification stated in supersession of the notification No 17877 of the Central Excise dated 18th June 1977 all excisable goods on which duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No 68 hereinafter referred to as the inputs  have been used are exempt from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs
It enjoins that the procedure set out in the Appendix should be followed and further that nothing contained in the said notification shall apply to the said goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil duty
It further stipulated that the credit of the duty allowed in respect of the inputs shall not be denied or varied on the ground that part of such inputs is contained in any waste refuse or by product arising during the process of manufacture of the said goods irrespective of the fact that such waste refuse or by product is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty
or is not mentioned in the declaration referred to in the Appendix to this notification
Provided also that nothing contained in any notification should apply to the said goods on which duty of excise is paid through bandrols
The Appendix provides the procedure
The benefit of proforma was claimed for the said goods on the plea that the goods were intended to be used as inputs in the manufacture of electric fans
The Asstt
Collector Central Excise Calcutta XV Division disallowed proforma credit to the said goods on the ground that nameplates ale not essential ingredients or raw materials in the manufacture of finished goods ie electric fans and thus cannot be considered as inputs in terms of the notification No 20l79 dated 461979
The respondent preferred an appeal against the decision before the Collector Appeals Central Excise Calcutta and the same was allowed holding inter alia that para 8 of the supplement to the manual of Departmental instructions on electric fans has clarified the utility of the use of nameplate on eleectric fan and hence viewed from this PG NO 1001 angle the said goods should be treated as inputs  in terms of the notification No 20179 dated 4th June 1979
The Collector therefore set aside the order of the Asstt
Collector
There was an appeal to the Tribunal
The Tribunal in its order noted that the short point requiring decision in this case was whether the nameplate could be considered as component part of the electric fan so as to be eligible for proforma credit under the exemption notification
The Tribunal further noted that no electric fan was removed from the factory for being marketed without the nameplate
The Tribunal also noted that even though it could be said that electric fans could function without the nameplates for actual marketing of the fan the affixation of the nameplate was considered as essential requirement
The Tribunal further noted that it was an essential requirement even from the point of view of the Excise Tariff because the rate of duty on different types of electric fans depended on their variety and the sweep size of the fan
This information was given in the nameplate only
It appears that the Department s own instructions in their Commodity Manual made it obligatory for every manufacturer to affix the nameplates on the fans
In those circumstances namely for marketing the nameplates these were essential
In other words they could not be marketed without the nameplates
The relevant particulars of the fan for the determination of duty depended on the particulars which are contained only in the nameplates
The Department s instruction requiring every manufacturer to affix the nameplates on the fans
indicate that nameplate was an essential ingredient to complete the process of manufacture for marketable electric fans
It those circumstances in our opinion the Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion that the nameplate was not a piece of decoration without the nameplate the electric fans as such could not be marketed and that the dealer was entitled to the benefit of the notification No 20l79 CE for the purpose of obtaining proforma credit
Fans with nameplates have certain value which the fans without the nameplates do not have
If that be so then the value added for the accretion of nameplate was entitled to proforma credit in terms of the said notification
It is true that an electric fan may perform its essential functions without affixation of the nameplate but that is not enough
Electric fans do not become marketable products without affixation of nameplates
PG NO 1002 In that view of the matter it appears to us that the Tribunal followed the correct principles applicable in this case
All the relevant and material factors were taken into consideration
The approach of the Tribunal was right
The decision arrived at on that basis appears to be correct
In the premises the appeal fails and is according dismiseed SKA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants and the respondents were lessees of coal mining rights in adjoining areas
In 1917 the predecessors in interest of the appellants trespassed into a portion Df the lands leased to the predecessors in interest of the respondents sank two inclines and two air shafts and lug out coal therefrom
There were no mining operations till 1023 when they were restarted and continued till 1926 and were recommenced in 1931 and carried on till 1933
In 1939 the mine was worked for a short time
In 1944 the operations were recommenced by the appellants
In 1945 the respondents brought a suit for fixation of the intermediate boundary for possession of the area trespassed upon and for compensation for coal illegally removed by the appellants
The appellants contended inte alia that they had been in sole exclusive uninterrupted possession of the area in dispute openly to the knowledge of the respondents and had acquired title by adverse possession Held that the intermittent working of the mine in the manner and for the period carried out by the appellants or their predecessors in interest was wholly insufficient to establish possession which could constitute adverse possession
During the period when there were no mining operations no kind of possession of the appellants was proved and the presumption that during such periods possession reverted to the true owner was not rebutted
Nageshwar Bux Roy vs Bengal Coal CO  1930 LR 58 IA 29 and Secretary of State for India vs Debendra Lal Khan 1933 LR 61 IA 78 distinguished