1992 (12) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Duty Payment & Penalty Decision, Crane Integral to Manufacturing Process

The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision on duty demand and penalty, reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000. The appellants were found liable for ... Plant and Machinery - Computation of value Issues:- Denial of benefit of Notification 77/83 and 77/85 by the lower authority.- Inclusion of crane and accessories in the value of Plant and machinery.- Whether the crane is part of the manufacturing process.- Interpretation of the scope of the notifications.- Liability for duty payment and penalty.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, where the lower authority denied the appellants the benefit of Notification 77/83 and 77/85 due to the value of plants and machinery installed exceeding the limit set by the notifications. The lower authority imposed duty and penalty on the appellants for wrongly availing the exemption. The appellants argued that the crane and slicing machine installed in their factory should not be included in the value of plant and machinery as they were not used in the manufacture of excisable goods. However, the Department contended that the crane was part of the manufacturing process.The Tribunal observed that the crane was used for moving granite slabs in the factory, contributing to increased production. The appellants did not inform the authorities about the installation of the crane and slicing machine, leading to the suppression of facts. The Tribunal noted that the crane was essential for the manufacturing of polished granite stones, as heavy slabs needed to be moved during and after the polishing process. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized that processes integrally connected with manufacturing must be considered part of the manufacturing process. Therefore, the crane was deemed part of the plant and machinery for manufacturing polished granite stones.Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision regarding the duty demand and penalty. However, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 in the interest of justice. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to provide necessary information about the crane's installation, leading to their liability for duty payment and penalty. The appeal was dismissed with the modified penalty amount.