1999 (8) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras had held that gauges were in the nature of apparatus, tools etc. and they were used for processing and producing their final products and thus were an excluded item in terms of the explanation under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 as amended. 2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. They have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune [1994 (70) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal)]. 3. Today, the matter is listed for mention. As the appellants have prayed for decision on merits and there is nothing to indicate about the Larger Bench decision referred to earlier and as the facts are not disputed, we are proceeding to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....217/86-C.E. refers not only to the bringing about any change in any substance but also to the production or processing of the goods. The relevant extracts from the explanation are given below: "Machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products." There is no dispute that the gauges were in the nature of apparatus, tools or appliances. It is also admitted position that they were used for the production and processing of the final products. The final products manufactured by the appellants were precision items which had to conform to the given specifications. It was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in substance for the manufacture of the final products'. Therefore, what is excluded from the scope of Notification No. 217/86, is automatically covered by definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. Viewed from this angle, we hold that the judgments in the context of Rule 57Q are directly applicable to the present case. Since it has been held in the above decisions that material handling equipment is used for processing goods in relation to the manufacture of the final products, such equipment are excluded from the scope and ambit of Notification 217/86. The items in dispute viz. tollies, bins and pallets are material handling equipment used for storing, stacking, han....