2001 (4) TMI 764 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Orders Fresh Decision on Machinery Exemption Eligibility

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi remanded cases for fresh decision regarding the eligibility of machinery items for exemption under Notification ... Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. - manufactured goods in factory workshop and exemption under Notification 281/86 - remand for fresh consideration in light of Larger Bench precedentEligibility for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. - remand for fresh consideration in light of Larger Bench precedent - Whether certain machinery items manufactured in the factory (e.g., roller assembly, gauges, push trolleys, conveyors) are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. - HELD THAT: - Both parties acknowledged that the question is covered by the Larger Bench decision in Commissioner Central Excise, Indore v. M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd. The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreement to remit the matter for fresh consideration and set aside the impugned order. The appeals were remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner with a direction to re-consider and dispose of the cases in the light of the Larger Bench decision and any other relevant authorities, after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to present their case during the remand proceedings.Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision in light of the Larger Bench decision cited, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.Manufactured goods in factory workshop and exemption under Notification 281/86 - Whether goods manufactured in the workshop within the factory are eligible for exemption under Notification 281/86 where the goods are not shown to be used for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed in the factory. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench decision in TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, which held that the exemption under Notification 281/86 is available only for production within a workshop situated within a factory when the goods are used for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed therein. The assessee did not contend that the goods manufactured were so used; accordingly, the benefit of Notification 281/86 was held not to be available to the assessee.Claim to exemption under Notification 281/86 rejected on the ground that the goods were not shown to be used for repairs or maintenance as required by the Larger Bench precedent.Final Conclusion: Appeals disposed of: the issues concerning Notification No. 217/86-C.E. remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision in view of the Larger Bench authority; claims under Notification 281/86 rejected as not falling within the scope laid down by the Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., the goods not being shown to be used for repairs or maintenance. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed issues related to the eligibility of machinery items for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The cases were remanded for fresh decision in light of relevant decisions. Another issue involved eligibility for benefits under Notification 281/86, which was not available as per the Tribunal's decision in TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, Madras. Appeals were disposed of accordingly.