1996 (8) TMI 316 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The issue involved in this case is whether the appellants are eligible to claim credit of duty under Rule 57-Q for the use of Hydraulic Mobile Crane in the manufacture of Transmission Line Tower Material.

Summary:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Transmission Line Tower Material, claimed credit of duty under Rule 57-Q for using a Hydraulic Mobile Crane. The Assistant Collector denied the credit, stating the Mobile Crane was used only for handling material, not for producing or processing goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant's counsel argued that the Mobile Crane is essential for fabricating heavy Transmission Line Towers and for the galvanization process. They cited a Supreme Court decision and Tribunal judgments supporting the admissibility of credit under Rule 57-Q for similar equipment like Forklifts and EOT cranes used in manufacturing processes.

Respondent's Argument:
The respondent's representative supported the lower authorities' decision, contending that the Mobile Crane did not contribute to the manufacturing or processing of goods.

Judgment:
After considering both sides' arguments and relevant precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Rule 57-Q for using the Mobile Crane in their manufacturing process. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case, the Tribunal determined that handling material with the Mobile Crane constituted part of the manufacturing process. Therefore, the appellants were deemed eligible for the duty credit under Rule 57-Q. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.