1981 (1) TMI 269 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/77 for Central Excise Tariff exemption.
2. Determination of whether components were manufactured on behalf of the assessee.
3. Consideration of the use of power in the manufacture of goods for exemption eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Notification No. 179/77 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to goods manufactured by the assessee, which were insulated wares and tiffin carriers. These goods fell under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and were claimed to be exempt from duty if manufactured without the aid of power. The Appellate Collector had initially ruled in favor of the assessee, granting them the exemption.

2. The Government issued a show cause notice to the assessee, alleging that since the components used in the manufacturing process were produced by outside parties with the aid of power, the goods were not eligible for the exemption. The assessee disputed this claim, arguing that they purchased the components from regular manufacturers on a principal-to-principal basis and did not supply raw materials for the component production. They contended that the mere specification of components did not imply manufacturing on their behalf.

3. During the hearing, the assessee cited a judgment from the Delhi Court in a similar case involving soap manufacturing, where the court clarified that the use of power exemption referred specifically to the final product and not to the power used in manufacturing raw materials. The assessee emphasized that as they did not use power in their factory for manufacturing the finished goods, they should qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 179/77. The Government, after considering the contentions and evidence presented, found merit in the assessee's arguments.

4. The Government concluded that the components were not conclusively proven to have been manufactured on behalf of the assessee, and since no power was used in the manufacturing process of the finished goods, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Consequently, the review proceedings were dropped, and the decision of the Appellate Collector in favor of the assessee was upheld.