Power used in transferring raw materials can defeat exemption and sustain confiscation, with credit claim remanded for verification.

Use of electric pumps to lift and transfer raw materials into the processing vessels was treated as part of the continuous manufacturing process, so the goods were regarded as manufactured with the aid of power and did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 230/86. Confiscation of the plant and machinery used in that power-assisted manufacture was sustained, although the redemption fine and penalty were reduced on the facts. The Modvat credit claim depended on verification of factual details and was therefore remanded for examination by the Commissioner. The duty demand and confiscation were substantially maintained, with relief confined to reduction in fine and penalty and remand of the credit issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether thinner was manufactured with the aid of power so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 230/86 dated 03-04-1986. (ii) Whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and whether the claim for Modvat credit required remand for verification.

Issue (i): Whether thinner was manufactured with the aid of power so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 230/86 dated 03-04-1986.

Analysis: The use of electric pumps to lift and transfer raw materials into the processing vessels was held to be part of the manufacturing process and not a merely independent preparatory activity. The transfer of raw material to the reacting or mixing stage was treated as integrally connected with manufacture, and if power was used in that operation, the goods could not be said to be made without the aid of power. The notification was therefore construed as inapplicable where power was employed in a step forming part of the continuous manufacturing process.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the duty demand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and whether the claim for Modvat credit required remand for verification.

Analysis: The plant and machinery used for the power-assisted manufacture were liable to confiscation under the penal provision. However, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced on the facts and circumstances. As the claim for Modvat credit depended on verification of relevant factual details, it could not be finally decided at that stage and required examination by the Commissioner.

Conclusion: Confiscation was sustained, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced, and the Modvat credit claim was remanded for verification.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in fine and penalty and remand of the Modvat credit issue, while the duty demand and confiscation were substantially maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Use of power in lifting, transferring, or feeding raw materials into the manufacturing stream forms part of manufacture with the aid of power and disentitles the assessee from an exemption confined to goods made without the aid of power.

---