1997 (8) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 to the appellants.
2. Interpretation of whether the generator sets were assembled with the aid of power.
3. Application of Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 to the manufacturing process.
4. Comparison of decisions from the Delhi High Court, Tribunal, and Supreme Court regarding the use of power in manufacturing processes.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing generator sets, filed an appeal against the denial of benefits under Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. The dispute arose as the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay held that the base plate, an essential component, was manufactured by the appellants using power, thus disqualifying them from the exemption.

2. The contention of the appellants was that they assembled the generator sets without the aid of power, entitling them to the benefit of the notification. However, the Collector ruled that since the base plate was manufactured with power, the exemption did not apply. The argument centered on whether the use of power in one component's manufacture affected the entire assembly process.

3. The debate revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977, which exempts goods from duty if no process is ordinarily carried out with the aid of power. The appellants relied on various legal precedents, including the Delhi High Court and Tribunal decisions, to support their claim for exemption.

4. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court decision in Standard Fireworks Industries case, which clarified that processes involving power, even if for raw material, could disqualify the final product from the exemption. The Tribunal's decisions were examined, but it was noted that circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs post-dated the relevant events in this case, rendering those decisions inapplicable.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellants' case aligned with the Supreme Court decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of the specific wording and interpretation of the notification in determining the applicability of exemptions in excise matters.