1987 (9) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 179/77-C.E. regarding Central Excise duty exemption for fabricated mica.
- Determination of whether checking mica on a lighted table constitutes a part of the manufacturing process for fabricated mica.
- Analysis of the definition of "power" as per Section 2(g) of the Factories Act, 1948 in relation to the use of a tube light for checking mica.
- Consideration of previous judgments and their applicability to the present case.
- Examination of the facts surrounding the use of the lighted table and its relevance to the manufacturing process of fabricated mica.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of fabricated mica falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, seeking exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 179/77-C.E. The dispute arose when the Collector of Central Excise held that using a lighted table for checking mica films constituted a part of the manufacturing process, thereby disqualifying the goods from the exemption. The main contention was whether checking mica on the lighted table was an integral part of the manufacturing process or a separate activity post-manufacturing.

The appellants argued that the final product of fabricated mica was fully manufactured before sorting and grading, and thus, checking the mica on the lighted table was not a manufacturing process. They also contended that the definition of "power" as per Section 2(g) of the Factories Act, 1948 should apply, stating that the use of a tube light did not qualify as the use of power for manufacturing. The respondent, however, supported the Collector's decision, citing previous judgments where certain processes were deemed as part of the manufacturing under the Central Excises and Salt Act.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the case records, the tribunal found that the fabricated mica was entirely manufactured before the sorting and grading process. The use of the lighted table for sorting and grading did not constitute a manufacturing process. The tribunal noted that the appellants used the table for a limited period to satisfy Russian inspectors for an export order, and it was not a regular part of their manufacturing process. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Collector's order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the use of the lighted table during the specified period did not amount to manufacturing with the aid of power as per the exemption notification.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision hinged on the distinction between the manufacturing process of fabricated mica and the post-manufacturing activities of sorting and grading. By analyzing the specific facts of the case and the applicability of relevant legal definitions and precedents, the tribunal determined that the use of a lighted table for checking mica films did not disqualify the goods from the exemption under the Central Excise Tariff.