9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EGAT) ERB Calcutta is correct in law that Mobile Factory is not a factory for manufacture of goods so as to be treated as capital goods. 2. Whether the ld. CEGAT ERB, Calcutta has not erred in holding that the activities carried out by the Mobile Bulk Delivery Truck is not within the meaning of manufacture as stipulated in Section. 3. Whether ld. Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) ERB, Calcutta, was right is not considering the very fact that Mobile Delivery Pumptruck is a manufacturing unit itself and being a manufacturing equipment it is a capital goods and eligible for Modvat Credit of duty paid on such manufacturing equipment, irrespective of whether it is a static equipment of a mobile equipment. 4. Whether the ld. Tribunal has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is a new technology and as such the availability of Modvat Credit should have been viewed from that angle. As there is no other decision on the subject, the questions of law posed by them be referred to the High Court for clarification. 3. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue countered the arguments of the applicant firm and submitted that there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Modvat Rules and the Tribunal has given a very detailed judgement justifying rejection of the Modvat Credit on the capital goods installed in the Mobile factory. As such, he prays for rejection of the Reference Application. 4. I have heard the submissions made from both sides and have also gone through the Tribunal s Order dated 17-3-1998. Paras 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2 (e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply which states that it means any premises including precincts thereof in which any excisable goods are manufactured. Premises means any house or a confined area i.e. which is not movable. In other words, the concept of a mobile factory is alien to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and from that angle no Modvat credit would be available at all to the goods as mentioned in para 7 above. 9. There is yet another angle from which the problem can be examined but neither the appellant nor the department has examined the same. It is apparent from the facts that the assembled MDPT has not discharged duty liability under Tariff Heading 87.05 on its full value. The fact that MDPT Itself is an exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewed from that angle. I also note that the applicants have been given a Central Excise Registration by treating MDPT as mobile factory. If the MDPT can be considered to be a mobile factory covered under the Central Excise provisions for registration purposes, a doubt can arise as to how the same was not considered as a factory for the purposes of Modvat. In my views, this is a fit question for referring to the Honorable High Court. Accordingly, I refer the following question to the Hon ble High Court for the legal interpretation of the Rules involved in the present case:- Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Modvat Credit of duty paid on capital goods used for assembling and installed in the Mobile Bulk Delivery Pumptruc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
