Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (2) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants, one in the pump maintenance (burn-out) section and the other in the instrument shop, on the ground that these two places were used for purposes other than for the manufacture of goods. The Additional Collector, therefore, called upon the appellants to pay the differential duty on the two air conditioners in terms of the show cause Notice dated 22-12-1979 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Ujjain. 2. We have heard Shri Vivek Gambhir, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, Departmental Representative, for the respondent and have read the record. 3. Central Excise Notification No. 56/78 issued under Central Excise Rule 8(1) fixes a concessional rate of duty for room air conditioners falling under Item .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aw material in process. The Additional Collector has held that the notification envisages duty concession only in respect of air conditioners installed in those places of the factory where goods are manufactured or are stored. He has held that the two places referred to earlier could not be considered to be such places though the air conditioners installed in those places might help to control certain instruments. No manufacturing activity as taking place in either of the two places. It is on this basis that the Additional Collector has denied the benefit of the duty concession. 5. It is urged before us for the appellants and it is also apparent from the record that the appellants had applied for and obtained permission from the Central E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12-1979, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Ujjain, issued a show cause notice to the appellants in respect of the other two air conditioners alleging contravention of Central Excise Rule 192 read with Rule 196 and demanding payment of differential duty. The Additional Collector, in due course, confirmed this demand. 6. Central Excise Rule 192 provides that where the Central Government has, by notification under Rule 8, sanctioned the remission of duty on excisable goods, used in a specified industrial process, any person wishing to obtain remission of duty on such goods shall make an application to the Collector in the proper form stating the estimated annual quantity of the excisable goods required, the purpose for and the manner in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ground that the places where the air conditioners were installed were such that the notification in question was not applicable in the case of the appellants. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that since the appellants had disclosed all the material particulars in their application and had installed the air conditioners in the places shown in the ground plan, they cannot be said to have violated the provisions of Rule 192. If the department had any reservations in the matter, they could have denied permission under Rule 192 of course giving valid reasons therefore. Once the permission was given and the appellants had acted upon such permission without going out of the parameters set out by the applicatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the air conditioners installed by the appellants in the instrument workshop and the pump maintenance section were not eligible for duty concession in terms of the notification. 11. Shri Sachar has cited the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Ram Chander, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 231 (S.C.) = 1987 (13) E.C.R. 941 (S.C.) in support of his contention that manufacturing activity could extend to even finishing activities but not beyond as in the present case. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the process of ironing, with the aid of power, of stitched clothes was an incidental or ancillary process in the manufacture of stitched clothes though it was intended to give a fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates