2001 (1) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed by a manufacturer of excisable goods who has availed Modvat credit on capital goods viz. 180 KV DG set and induction heater. The lower authorities on having observed that the said goods were removed from the premises of this small scale manufacturer to the adjacent premises and that would constitute violati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... factory boundary walls to adjacent building thereto, for reasons of space constraints, especially when the definition of factory as given in Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which includes and means any premises or the precincts thereto is read. In the present case, they submit that the machinery items in question have only been removed to a adjacent premises and this removal was due t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ered the submissions and the material on record and find that removal under Rule 57-S(1)(ii) is qualified removal for export and home consumption only. It will not be attracted if the machinery is removed or shifted to the premises adjacent to the boundary of the factory or in precincts apertenent thereto, as in this case. Therefore, we cannot uphold the violation of the Modvat Rule 57-S(1)(ii) in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X