1997 (12) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn-Over Unit; (ii) Billet Feeding Arrangement; (iii) Sprue-Cutting Device; (iv) Scissors Lift." 2. The adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of the aforesaid Notification on the ground that the aforesaid four items are complete machinery for producing or processing goods and therefore, these would fall within the mischief of proviso to the said Notification and would, therefore, be outside the benefit of the said Notification. In order to understand their functions, we reproduce the write-up in respect of each item given in the impugned order :- "(i) Turn-Over Unit : It is a complete machinery. It is used to turn the material with the help of hydraulic cylinder. The hydraulic pressure is devel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. cannot be allowed to this item." 3. Learned Advocate, Shri V. Sridharan has submitted that from the aforesaid write-up in respect of three items (excluding Sprue-Cutting Device), it is apparent that no change in respect of the goods is brought about by these machines which these machines handle. It cannot, therefore, be held that these machines are doing any function of producing or processing the goods. He has made a further submission that the expression used in the proviso to Notification No. 118/75 is "complete machinery". The word, "machinery", according to him, as given in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., which takes out the extract from McG....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal product. He, therefore, submits that proviso to the said Notification is clearly attracted in respect of these machines and the lower authorities have correctly denied the benefit of the said Notification. 5. In his rejoinder, learned Advocate, Shri Sridharan has submitted that it is an exemption notification and a special exclusion has been carved out. Therefore, the word, `used' in the proviso should be strictly construed before any liability on the appellants is imposed in terms of that proviso. He submits that the three machines are clearly lifting and handling machines and these machines do not bring about as stated earlier, any change in the goods handled by it. In respect of the item, Sprue-Cutting Device, he submits that....