TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (10) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agdish Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the concession in terms of Notification No. 281/86. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel and various products of steel. They claimed the benefit of Notification No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity service and is not a profit making centre; that no sooner the workshop is used as a profit making centre, it automatically gets transformed into the factory and goes out of the purview of the Notification. Ld. Collector (Appeals) held that plain reading of the Notification No. 281/86 reveals that the exemption applies to the goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re undertaken. He submits that there are a number of decisions of this Tribunal which held that Notification No. 281/86 exempts goods manufactured in a workshop in the factory for the purpose of repair of machinery used in the factory; that the dispute raised by the Department is that a workshop and a factory cannot be equated. He submitted that this view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed. 4. Shri Jagdish Singh, ld. DR submits that the appellants were undertaking the machine and repair work in the factory that the factory cannot be equated with workshop: that the concession was available only if the machining part is done in the workshop and not in the factory. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We no....