Captive use exemption under Notification 217/86-C.E. excluded material handling equipment treated as plant or machinery for manufacture.

Material handling equipment manufactured and used captively in the same factory for manufacture of excisable goods was treated as excluded from exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The notification covered inputs manufactured and used within the factory for manufacture of dutiable goods, but its explanation excluded machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools and appliances used for producing or processing goods, or for bringing about any change in a substance in or in relation to manufacture of final products. Applying the larger Bench reasoning in Jawahar Mills, the equipment was regarded as falling within that exclusion, and the earlier contrary view was no longer good law.

---

---

Issues: Whether material handling equipment manufactured in the factory and used captively therein for manufacture of excisable goods was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., or stood excluded as machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing goods or for bringing out any change in any substance in or in relation to manufacture of the final products.

Analysis: The notification exempts inputs manufactured in a factory and used in that factory or another factory of the same manufacturer for manufacture of dutiable goods. Clause (1) of the explanation, however, excludes machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing goods or for bringing out any change in any substance in or in relation to manufacture of the final products. The larger Bench decision in Jawahar Mills held that such equipment may be capital goods even without an immediate nexus with the emergence of the final products, and that reasoning was applied to the exclusion clause in the notification. On that basis, the equipment was held to fall within the exclusion and the earlier contrary view was no longer good law.

Conclusion: The equipment was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., and the departmental appeal succeeded.

---