9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1983 (12) TMI 292 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Inclusion of the value of a mobile crane in the computation of the total investment made in plant and machinery for exemption from Central Excise duty under a government notification.
Analysis: 1. The Appellants, a company licensed for manufacturing floating vessels, contested the inclusion of a mobile crane's value in the calculation of the total investment in plant and machinery for Central Excise duty exemption. The dispute arose as the total value of plant and machinery exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, resulting in a demand for duty payment of Rs. 56,000 by the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, leading the Appellants to file a Revision petition, subsequently transferred to the Tribunal as an Appeal. 2. The Appellants argued that the mobile crane should be categorized as a conveyance and not part of the plant and machinery in the factory. Citing legal precedents and definitions of "installed," they contended that since the crane was mobile and not fixed to the ground, it should not be considered installed machinery. The Respondent, citing legal cases, argued that machinery encompasses all mechanical contrivances for generating power except stock-in-trade, and the crane, being integral to the industrial operations, should be included in the plant and machinery category. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and legal references presented by both parties. It determined that the mobile crane, utilized within the industrial unit for operational transport purposes, qualifies as an essential component of the plant and machinery installed in the factory. The Tribunal emphasized that the crane's functionality in handling manufacturing components demonstrated its integral role in industrial activities. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the value of the mobile crane should be factored into the total investment in plant and machinery, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal and upholding the duty payment requirement.
|
