2016 (11) TMI 577 - AT - Central Excise

Workshop adjacent to mine qualifies for excise duty exemption

Western Coalfields Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Tribunal held that a workshop adjacent to a mine, operated by the same company exclusively engaged in mining and producing parts for mining machines, ... Levy of tax - manufacture of certain parts and accessories in the said workshop which are used for mining machines - N/N. 182/87 dated 10/07/1987 as amended by Notification 234/1988 and 63/1995 - workshop not situated within the precincts of the mines - Held that: - the workshop is not within the mining area but situated adjacent to the mining area. However, workshop belongs to the same company which is exclusively engaged in mining of coal. It is also not disputed that the parts manufactured in the workshop is used for mining machines of the appellant. The issue is no more res integra, reliance placed on the decision of the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [2006 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where it was held that A workshop which is in an area in the environs of a mine and directly serving mining operations are entitled for the purpose of grant of exemption from excise duty. Excise duty exempted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Whether parts and accessories manufactured in a workshop adjacent to a mine are liable to excise duty.2. Whether a workshop adjacent to a mine can be considered within the precincts of the mine for the purpose of exemption from excise duty.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in coal mining, was manufacturing parts and accessories in a workshop adjacent to a mine. The department raised a demand for excise duty on the grounds that these items were not eligible for exemption as the workshop was not within the precincts of the mine. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, leading the appellant to appeal.2. The Revenue argued that since the workshop was not located within the mining area, the manufactured goods were not eligible for exemption. However, it was undisputed that the workshop belonged to the same company exclusively engaged in mining, and the parts manufactured were used for mining machines. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment which emphasized that the exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. applies to all goods manufactured in a mine, with the term 'mine' including workshops and stores within the precincts of the mine.3. The Tribunal highlighted that the term 'precincts' had various interpretations, including the surrounding region or area. It discussed different definitions from legal dictionaries and emphasized the need to interpret the term broadly to serve the purpose of encouraging the mining industry. Applying the purposive rule of interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that a workshop in the environs of a mine, solely for purposes connected with the mine and under the same management, should be considered within the definition of a mine for exemption purposes.4. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision and the broader interpretation of 'precincts,' the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting exemption from excise duty to the parts and accessories manufactured in the workshop adjacent to the mine. The judgment was pronounced on 14/10/2016.