TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured. The benefit of the said notification has been denied to the appellants in respect of cranes on the ground that they were outside the purview of the above said notification since they attracted the exclusion clause in the said notification relating to machinery used in the factory for manufacture or processing of excisable goods. Accordingly, the demand of duty of Rs. 2,87,575/- has been confirmed by the Collector, C. Ex., Calcutta vide his impugned order whereas the Collector has denied the benefit of the said notification on the ground that the cranes were not used for manufacture of processing or producing the final goods but were only for transporting or lifting heavy e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dly the same should be meant for `producing' or `processing' of any goods. Arguing on the first issue, he submits the expression `complete machinery' came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Oswal Vanaspati & General Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 691 (Tribunal). In the said judgment, `Electrolytic Cells' for producing hydrogen gas were held not constituting a complete machinery as the complete machinery in the context of the hydrogen gas was held to connote not merely the cells but also connecting pipelines/storage tanks etc. for transport/storage of the hydrogen produced. 3. Reliance was also placed by the ld. Advocate on the Tribunal's decision in the case of South India Sugar Ltd. v. C.C.E.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.). He submits that vide para 19, their Lordship has interpreted and examined the expression `processing'. It has been observed in para 20 that "What is necessary in order to characterise an operation as `processing' is that the commodity must, as a result of the operation, experience some change. The question is not whether there is manual application of energy or there is application of mechanical force. Whatever be the means employed for the purpose of carrying out the operation, it is the effect of the operation on the commodity that is material for the purpose of determining whether the operation constitutes `pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcluded. 9. Ld. JDR Shri R.K. Roy appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue is no more res integra as finally decided by the Tribunal in their Final Order No. E/339/96-B1, dated 23-7-1996. He further submits that the said order placed reliance on the Patna High Court judgment in the case of TISCO. As there is no other judgment of any High Court, the Patna High Court decision should be followed by this Bench. 10. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We take note of the fact that the Tribunal vide Order dated 23-7-1996 (supra) relying upon Patna High Court decision in the case of TISCO covering exactly the same item and same notification have held that the cranes are hit by the proviso to Notification No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemption was being examined in respect of Vacuum pans. The case-law relied upon by the ld. Advocate on the second issue is that what is `processing' is also in different set of facts and circumstances. In the case of Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., the process of retrieving and segregating fibre for waste water was being examined. Similarly in the case of Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune, the Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 differs. As the wording and purport of the notification in question are different than that of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., the conclusion arrived in the case of TELCO decided by Tribunal cannot be applied in the instance case. Similarly, we find that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ....