TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t), affected clearances without payment of any excise duty during certain period, availing benefit of exemption notifications, being firstly, Notification No. 89/79, dated 1-3-1979, replaced later by Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980. The period in dispute, so far as the present appeal is concerned, relates to clearances affected between 1-8-1980 to 30-3-1981, during which period the notification under operation, namely, No. 105/80 exempted goods falling under Tariff Item 68 if the total turnover of the manufacturers did not exceed ₹ 30 lakhs, and the total capital investment towards Plant and Machinery installed, did not exceed ₹ 10 lakhs. 2. As a sequel to a visit of appellant s factory by Range Superintendent, on 5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, filed by the Appellants, as verified by their Chartered Accountant, he dismissed the appeal. 5. It is this order, which is impugned in the present appeal, and the appellants contend that the Collector (Appeals), had gone wrong in including the cost of the buildings towards the amount of capital investment on Plant and Machinery . They asserted that the term buildings have an entirely different concept than Plant and Machinery . It is further urged that the controversy before the Collector (Appeals), was confined to the question as to whether the amount spent by the appellants towards purchase of materials for construction of, what they describe to be a Heat Chamber , could be accounted towards the cost of the investment on P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was never before the Collector (Appeals), and for which the appellants had absolutely no notice. He contended that this action of the Collector (Appeals) was violative of the principle of natural justice, resulting in prejudice to the appellants, and that the order was liable to be set aside on this short ground. 7. Shri Lakshmikumaran, SDR, however, defended the order of the Collector (Appeals) inasmuch as the result is concerned; namely, the finding that the total capital investment exceeded ₹ 10 lakhs. While conceding that the cost of buildings could not be deemed to be part of the Plant and Machinery , he urged that the intention of the notification was to take into account total capital expenditure, and in that view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a new ground on the basis of perusal of certain audited reports, certified by the Chartered Accountant of the appellants, and has not expressly rejected the contention as set forth before him. Thus, the plea as to exclusion of cost of material has to be taken to have been upheld. The respondent having failed to challenge that finding by way of cross-objections to this appeal, or otherwise, are precluded from now reviving this controversy. Otherwise also, we find that the emphasis in the notification is on the cost of Plants and Machinery installer , (emphasis supplied). Thus the mere purchase of material would not amount to capital investment on installation. The facts are not disputed ; namely, that during the relevant period, the Heat C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
