2014 (6) TMI 61 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Amend Factory Plan Rejected: Transportation Pipelines Not Considered Manufacturing

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal to amend the approved ground plan of Central Excise registration to include pipelines for transportation, ... Application for amendment in approved ground plan of Central Excise registration to include the pipeline laid down from Wadinar (Gujarat) state to the refinery at Bina (M.P.) - Held that:- A combined reading of ‘factory’ and ‘manufacture’, makes it clear that while obtaining registration for carrying out any manufacturing activity, the approval of the ground plan would relate to manufacturing premises or factory - the factory ‘premises’ and ‘precincts’ have been interpreted to mean all building or complex with its surroundings where manufacturing activity is taking place. The transportation of the crude oil through the pipelines which travel through various States of India cannot be held to be a process integrally connected with the final manufacturing so as to include the same with the refinery functions. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas Vs. CCE Allahabad - [2000 (4) TMI 60 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has held that pump used for delivering water from the reservoir through pipeline to factory located a K.M. away from the factory cannot be held to be as falling within the factory precinct nor the bringing water from reservoir to the factory located at a K.M. away constitutes part of the manufacturing process. The definition of factory covers the premises and precincts of factory and not the premises or precincts beyond the factory premises and a dam reservoir located away from the factory cannot be treated as within the factory premises. Similarly in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Southern Iron & Steel Co. - [2000 (5) TMI 100 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] it was held that a pump house located 15 Kms. Away from the assessee’s factory used for drawing and pumping of water cannot be treated as extension of the factory - pipelines laid down beneath the land for transportation of the crude, travel through various States and is primarily meant for transportation of the raw material. The entire area of the pipeline is around 900 Kms. of length. To allow the registration of the same by holding the same to be a factory premises or precinct thereof would meant to allowing the road area used by transportation of the raw materials by a truck - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Amendment of approved ground plan of Central Excise registration to include pipelines for transportation.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'factory' and 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act.3. Determining whether the pipeline areas can be considered part of the factory premises or precinct.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor spirit, high speed diesel, and liquid petroleum gas, sought to amend their approved ground plan to include pipelines laid from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh. The request was initially rejected by the authorities, leading to the present appeal.2. The primary contention revolved around the interpretation of the term 'factory' as defined in the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the pipeline areas were integral to the manufacturing process, while the Revenue contended that transportation of raw materials did not constitute manufacturing activity.3. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of 'factory' and 'manufacture,' emphasizing that registration approval relates to manufacturing premises. Judicial precedents were cited to illustrate that areas beyond the factory premises, like pump houses or reservoirs located kilometers away, were not considered part of the factory precinct.4. Considering the extensive length of the pipelines and their primary purpose of raw material transportation, the Tribunal concluded that including them in the factory premises or precinct would be akin to registering road areas used for transportation. Consequently, the appellant's appeal to amend the registration was rejected.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of delineating factory premises based on the manufacturing process and the boundaries of such premises. The decision underscored that activities like transportation of raw materials, even if essential, may not necessarily fall within the definition of manufacturing for registration purposes.