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

2000 (6) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that the assessee, appellant in this appeal, wrongly availed the benefit of Notification Nos. 105/80 and 77/83. 2.In order to understand the stand taken by the department, it is worthwhile to deal with Notification No. 105/80 at the outset itself. Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980 gave certain benefits to small-scale manufacturers of goods falling under Item 68 on clearances not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs in a year. As per that notification, Central Government exempted goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule in respect of first clearances for home consumption by or on behalf of the manufacturer from one or more factories up to a value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs cleared on or after the first day of April in any financial year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s is whether the calculation resorted to by the Collector in fixing the value of the clearances at an amount above Rs. 30 lakhs is proper or not. 3.In arriving at the total value of the clearances, Collector included the value of kettle, chimney and processing unit. Value of the kettle was fixed at Rs. 1,04,521.11, that of chimney at Rs. 32,075.90 and that of processing unit at Rs. 2,89,778.88. These three items along with furnace form the galvanising machinery. According to the assessee, these three units together with furnace which make the galvanising machinery are not goods as contemplated by excise law but are immovable property embedded to the earth. They are fixed permanently to the earth and so cannot be treated as assessable good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me to the conclusion that the machinery involved in that case was not attached to the earth. Their Lordships took the view that machinery which were attached to concrete base were so done to prevent wobbling and to secure operational efficiency only. After considering the decision in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., the Supreme Court in Duncans Industries Ltd. came to the conclusion that machinery which are attached to concrete base are immovable property. Galvanising machinery of which furnace, kettle, chimney and processing unit form part are squarely fastened to the earth and are not movable. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to earlier, we have no hesitation in holding that the galvanising machinery concerned in this c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g unit in finding out the value of the clearances as was done by him in the impugned order. When the value of these three items is excluded, the value of clearances falls far below the limit fixed in Notification No. 105/80. This means that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the notification for the year 1981-82. 6.For the year 1982-83, value of the goods cleared was given by the assessee at Rs. 39,98,797.49. This was below the limit of Rs. 40 lakhs fixed for that year. By the impugned order the said amount was enhanced to Rs. 40,75,651.49. This figure was arrived at by adding the value of kettle at Rs. 76,853.98. As stated earlier in our order, kettle by itself cannot be considered to be a complete machinery. Viewed in that light .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ost. The figure under column 4 was Rs. 17,76,527.67. The transportation charges under column 5 came to Rs. 29,077.04. Apportioned cost was shown as Rs. 2,14,061.00. The amounts shown in all these three columns were added together by the Collector to find out the cost of the plant and machinery. Thereby he arrived at the figure of Rs. 20,19,665.71. A perusal of annexure 'A' shows that the assessee claimed transportation charges in respect of goods brought from outside the factory. That expenditure incurred in bringing the materials to the factory could not have been added to the cost of plant and machinery. In other words, the Collector was clearly in error in adding Rs. 29,077.04. (Reference in this regard may be made to the Govt. of India .....

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