1996 (6) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Revenue aggrieved by order extending Modvat credit on cane unloader; Interpretation of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Summary:

Issue 1: Modvat Credit on Cane Unloader
The case involved the Revenue's challenge against the order extending Modvat credit on a cane unloader used by the respondents in their sugar factory. The lower Appellate Authority accepted the respondents' claim that parts of the cane unloader are capital goods as per Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Machinery for Production
The dispute centered around whether the cane unloader qualified as machinery used for production of goods. The department argued that the cane unloader was merely a material handling equipment and not a machine for production. Citing a Tribunal case, the department contended that material handling equipment does not fall under the category of machinery for production. In contrast, the respondents relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that activities integral to further manufacturing operations constitute a manufacturing process.

The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted that activities like handling, lifting, and transportation of raw materials are part of the manufacturing process if connected with subsequent operations leading to the production of goods. The judgment emphasized that any operation essential and related to further manufacturing steps qualifies as a process in or in relation to manufacture. The Court clarified that even preliminary activities integral to manufacturing, such as transferring raw materials with power assistance, are considered part of the manufacturing process.

In the present case, as the process of manufacturing sugar was continuous from unloading cane to the final product, the Supreme Court's judgment was deemed applicable. Consequently, the impugned order extending Modvat credit on the cane unloader was upheld, and the appeal was rejected while the cross-appeal was allowed.