1988 (7) TMI 312 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 281/86 dated 24-04-1986 for duty exemption on excisable goods manufactured for repair/maintenance within a factory.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 281/86 for exemption eligibility
The ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that the goods manufactured within various workshops in the factory for repair and maintenance should be eligible for exemption as per Notification No. 281/86. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) denied the exemption, stating that the goods were not manufactured in a workshop within the factory. The appellants claimed that the exemption should be accorded to them based on their manufacturing activities prior to the new Central Excise Tariff. The notification does not specify the size or type of workshop, only requiring excisable goods manufactured within a workshop for repair/maintenance. The Tribunal held that the intent of the notification should be based on the plain terms, and the exemption cannot be denied based on assumptions beyond the notification's wording.

Issue 2: Definition of "factory" and "workshop" under Central Excises Act
The Respondent argued that the exemption under Notification No. 281/86 applies only to goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory, not in the entire factory. Referring to the definition of "factory" under Section 2(e) of the Central Excises Act, the Respondent contended that a workshop is a place where manual or industrial work is carried out. The Respondent cited legal judgments emphasizing strict interpretation of taxing statutes and notifications. The appellant countered that the size of the workshop should not be a determining factor for exemption eligibility, as long as excisable goods are manufactured within a workshop for repair and maintenance purposes.

Issue 3: Precedents and interpretation of notifications
The Tribunal considered previous judgments and legal principles related to interpreting notifications under taxing statutes. It emphasized that the intent of the law should be clear and unambiguous, without relying on assumed intentions of the authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that the exemption should not be construed in a manner that defeats its purpose, especially considering the previous exemption under Notification No. 118/75. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal is maintainable and allowed based on the clear intent of the law regarding the exemption eligibility under Notification No. 281/86.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, clarified the interpretation of Notification No. 281/86 for duty exemption on excisable goods manufactured within a factory for repair and maintenance, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the plain terms of the notification and the clear intent of the law in such matters.