9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to the benefit of the Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 or not? "(i) Turn-Over Unit; (ii) Billet Feeding Arrangement; (iii) Sprue-Cutting Device; (iv) Scissors Lift." 2. The adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of the aforesaid Notification on the ground that the aforesaid four items are complete machinery for producing or processing goods and therefore, these would fall within the mischief of proviso to the said Notification and would, therefore, be outside the benefit of the said Notification. In order to understand their functions, we reproduce the write-up in respect of each item given in the impugned order :- "(i) Turn-Over Unit : It is a complete machinery. It is used to tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery and work on the objects at higher reaches cannot be performed without its exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. cannot be allowed to this item." 3. Learned Advocate, Shri V. Sridharan has submitted that from the aforesaid write-up in respect of three items (excluding Sprue-Cutting Device), it is apparent that no change in respect of the goods is brought about by these machines which these machines handle. It cannot, therefore, be held that these machines are doing any function of producing or processing the goods. He has made a further submission that the expression used in the proviso to Notification No. 118/75 is "complete machinery". The word, "machinery", according to him, as given in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed by each of these machines is part of the process of manufacture of final product. He, therefore, submits that proviso to the said Notification is clearly attracted in respect of these machines and the lower authorities have correctly denied the benefit of the said Notification. 5. In his rejoinder, learned Advocate, Shri Sridharan has submitted that it is an exemption notification and a special exclusion has been carved out. Therefore, the word, `used' in the proviso should be strictly construed before any liability on the appellants is imposed in terms of that proviso. He submits that the three machines are clearly lifting and handling machines and these machines do not bring about as stated earlier, any change in the goods hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of the Notification must be meant for producing or processing of goods itself. We should see the function of the machine in the totality of the process undertaken by the appellants for manufacture of the final product in their plant or factory. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the three machines namely - Turn-Over Unit, Billet Feeding Arrangement and Scissors Lift - do not bring about any change in the material or goods which these machines handled. Therefore, they are, in our view, not meant for processing or producing any goods. Consequently, they are entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 118/75. 8. As regards the Sprue-Cutting Device, we also agree with the submission of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
