2002 (12) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. is available to the appellants in respect of iron and steel structures manufactured by them and used captively within the factory.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for iron and steel structures used in modernizing their sugar manufacturing process. They argued that these structures were integral to the machinery and not building materials. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their claim.
2. The Revenue countered, stating that the impugned products were not classified as goods fabricated at the site for construction work but under a different sub-heading. They argued that the benefit of the notification applies only to inputs or capital goods, which the iron and steel structures were not.
3. The Tribunal examined the submissions and photographs provided by the appellant. It found that the structures were not components of the machinery as claimed. The Tribunal noted that the impugned goods did not meet the criteria specified in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for capital goods eligible for the notification benefit.
4. The Tribunal distinguished previous case laws cited by both parties, emphasizing that the appellant failed to prove the structures were essential components of the machinery. Consequently, the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 was deemed unavailable to the appellants. The demand for excise duty was upheld, but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh in the interest of justice. The appeal was partly allowed.