9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (5) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Determination of whether the parts of the moving arm installed by the appellant are capital goods eligible for duty credit u/s Rule 57Q and Rule 57AA, and whether the moving arm is considered part of the factory premises u/s Section 2(e) of the Act.
Summary: 1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing polyvinyl chloride resin, installed a moving arm on a jetty to transport ethylene for production. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the duty credit claim stating the moving arm was within the factory premises and not used in the manufacturing process as required by the Act. 2. The appellant argued that the jetty, including the moving arm, should be considered part of the factory premises based on the definition in Section 2(e) of the Act. The ownership and control of the jetty by the appellant were highlighted, challenging the Commissioner's view. 3. The department representative cited precedents to support the rejection of the duty credit claim, emphasizing the location of the moving arm within the factory premises. 4. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's view, stating that any premises where manufacturing processes occur should be considered part of the factory. The ownership and control of the jetty by the appellant were crucial in determining its inclusion in the factory premises. 5. The Tribunal noted that the entire land up to the jetty belonged to the appellant, supporting the argument that the jetty should be considered part of the factory premises. Precedents were cited to illustrate the importance of ownership and control in such determinations. 6. The appellant's explanation regarding the use of the jetty for transporting liquified petroleum gas was considered satisfactory, further supporting the inclusion of the jetty in the factory premises. 7. Based on the ownership, control, and use of the jetty for manufacturing activities, the Tribunal concluded that the moving arm parts were eligible for duty credit, allowing the appeals. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
