9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 1B respectively of GET are manufactured. Liquid nitrogen is classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The appellants case is that since the production and clearance of liquid nitrogen falls well below the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs in a financial year they are not liable to pay any duty in terms of Notification 105/80, dated 19-6-1980. That exemption, however, is subject to a certain condition namely that the officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the sum total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which the said goods, under clearance, are manufactured is not more than Rs. 10 lakhs . The impugned order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the Bombay High Court in the case of Dgackjae Co. (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and others (misc. petition No. 241 of 1968 decided on 11-10-1968) examined the scope of the term industrial unit . He was, however, unable to produce any copy of the same judgment. Therefore, no cognizance of that judgment can be taken in considering the plea of the appellants. He has also pointed out another judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Devi Dayal Electronics Wires Ltd. v. Union of India and another [1984 (16) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.)]. That Court was examining the scope of a Notification 74/78, dated 1-3-1978, similar to the Notification 105/80, dated 19-6-1980, and came to the conclusion that an industria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lower appellate authority. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We observe that while there is a judgment of Bombay High Court mentioned supra in favour of the appellants there is another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Golden Press v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1987 (27) E.L.T. 273 (A.P.)]. Latter High Court was examining the scope of Notification 176/77, dated 18-6-1977 which is one of the predecessor notifications -of 105/80 in respect of the goods falling under Tariff Item 68. Andhra Pradesh High Court observes that the language of the exemption notification is very clear............. There is no room or occasion for allocating the machinery between various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Andhra Pradesh High Court appears also to be a valid one. In such an instance it is appropriate that the capital investment on such common plant and machinery should also be taken into account for the purpose of computing the capital investment on plant and machinery referable to goods covered by the exemption notification. In other words, we find that this question of common plant and machinery acquires significance in view of the fact that the nitrogen plant at the appellants dairy complex requires uninterrupted power supply and chilled water which is available in Matigara dairy plant". This factual information is available in the statement of facts given in the" appeal filed before the lower appellate authority by the appellants her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
