1991 (6) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'factory' under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for exemption under Notification No. 118/75.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, regarding the eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 118/75 for goods manufactured in a workshop used for repairing vessels in a dry-dock adjacent to the workshop. The Collector (Appeals) deemed the dry-dock as part of the factory premises, leading to the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise.

2. The appellant argued that the dry-dock of the Port Trust could not be considered part of the workshop or its precinct, thus making the respondents ineligible for the exemption. Reference was made to the definition of 'factory' in Section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. The respondents contended that the dry-dock should be deemed as part of the factory precinct since it was surrounded by various sections of the workshop where manufacturing activities took place. They argued that the entire complex, including the dry-dock, should be considered a 'factory' as per the Act.

4. The Tribunal examined the records and arguments presented by both sides. The key point of contention was whether goods manufactured in the workshop and used in the repair of vessels in the dry-dock could be deemed as used in the factory, as required by Notification No. 118/75.

5. Citing the case law of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, the Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'factory' includes the entire premises where excisable goods are manufactured, not limited to the specific area where manufacturing occurs. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise to support the interpretation of the exemption notification.

6. Based on the inspection of a sketch map and the surrounding infrastructure, the Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the dry-dock, along with various sections of the workshop, constituted the factory premises. Therefore, the excisable goods used in the dry-dock were deemed eligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, affirming that the entire complex of the workshop and dry-dock should be considered part of the factory premises for the purpose of exemption under the relevant notification.