Court rules excise duty exemption for construction materials not covered under export-oriented unit notification.

The High Court upheld the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision that excise duty exemption for cement used in construction activities was not covered under notification No. 1 of 1995 for a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The Court determined that the exemption was limited to goods directly related to manufacturing or packaging for export purposes, excluding general construction materials like cement. The specific items listed in the notification, such as material handling equipment and raw materials, guided the Court's conclusion that the government did not intend to include construction materials under the exemption.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 11th December 1997 regarding excise duty exemption for cement used in construction activities by a 100% Export Oriented Unit.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of Wool Worsted Yarn, claimed excise duty exemption for cement purchased for construction activities under notification No. 1 of 1995. The Tribunal rejected the claim stating that the notification only covers goods used in manufacturing the export product or packing material, not construction materials like cement. The High Court examined the notification and held that the term "capital goods" did not include cement for construction. The Court emphasized the specific items listed in the notification, like material handling equipment and raw materials, to reject the petitioner's argument. The Court concluded that the government's intention was not to include construction materials under the exemption.

The High Court reviewed the notification No. 1/95 CE dated 04.01.1995 and subsequent amendments, which exempt excisable goods produced in a 100% export oriented undertaking. The petitioner argued that cement should be considered a capital good for construction purposes. However, the Court analyzed the list of exempt items in the notification, which did not include construction materials. The Court highlighted that the exemption was limited to goods directly related to manufacturing or packaging for export purposes, not for general construction activities.

In dismissing the writ petition, the High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision. The Court upheld that the notification did not cover cement used for construction activities by the petitioner, emphasizing the specific mention of items eligible for exemption. The Court clarified that the exemption was intended for goods directly involved in manufacturing or packaging for export, excluding general construction materials like cement.

---