TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption of goods Rate Conditions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 39 85.43 Machinery for the production of a commodity 10% ad valorem - 2. (a) The entities, claimed for benefit of the notification and under dispute, are falling under Heading No. 85.43. The appellant is a manufacturer of Electro Plating Plant & Equipments. The entities under dispute were, by an earlier order on 22-6-93, granted the benefit under Notification 51/93 by holding that the said entities were used for production of a commodity and classification list were duly approved for 1993-94. (b) The Assistant Commissioner vide Order, dated 9-5-1996, for classification with effect from 10-5-96 found - "...The machinery in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand and penalty. Hence these appeal. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the material produced it is found - (a) The Tribunals decision in case of Canning Mitra Phoenix P. Ltd. 1996 (88) E.L.T. 796 (Tribunal) were not based on any technical expert advise. The decision in 4 thereof records- "4.............The Notification confers benefit only in respect of machines used for the production of commodity. Hence, on perusal of the relevant Tariff item, it covers electrical machines having individual function not elsewhere presented in the chapter. From this heading the notification seeks to confer the concessional rate only in respect of machines listed therein. Hence the question for consideration is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emraj Gordhandas, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350). (iii) The nature of machines falling under 85.43, is machines, apparatus etc performing individual and not entire functions by themselves. Therefore seeking to apply the exemption to a machine 'per se' capable of manufacture and not perform incidental or in relation to notes under 85.43. The heading covers machines under 85.43 and none of these entities would be covered by such an interpretation as is being resorted by Revenue reading the exemption not applicable to any entity under 85.43. Interpretations which would render an exemption a nullity are not permissible. (iv) The words 'used' employed in the term under reference would extend the benefit to an u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fine finish to special components. The manufacturing of special components of textile machinery which require very precise contours, electro machining is the only solution otherwise one has to go for still advanced routes of Laser cutting." (ii) The certificate of Central Electrochemical Research Institute Kari Kudi 630 006, Tamil Nadu, certifies Electroplating does result in the production of a commodity and lists inter alia Ball Bearing, Bang PCB and other electronic components and further goes to certify that without this process the products will not be acceptable as a 'commodity' in the market. (iii) Certificates produced from Customers engaged in Motor cycle, Auto a component Textile an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion implies change in the article on account of treatment to an article, yet every such manipulation may or may not result in 'manufacture', as understood by the Central Excise law (see catene of decision following Union of India v. M/s. Delhi Cloth Mills, 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (S.C.). The word 'production' is to be understood in that context, that there may be production of an intermediate or final commodity yet such production of a commodity will not amount to manufacture. The use is of a term 'production of a commodity' and not 'manufacture' of a commodity or manufacture of goods has been used by legislature in the notification that would keep the coverage of 'any change' brought in an article, by manipulation. The results may be emer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the eligibility, the entities herein to Notification 56/95 keeping in mind the use. (f) The appellants have relied upon the finding of this Tribunal in the case of CC v. Escorts - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 144 (Tri.) upheld by Apex Court [1997 (96) E.L.T. 504 (S.C.)] wherein a machine for cleaning of parts/components by ultrasound waves and thereby improving their function was held to be a machine designed for production of a commodity. Similarly in case of CC v. McDowell Co. - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 215 an Agitator machine which merely was to agitate/mix and keep partially polymerised hydro carbon was held to be a 'machinery used for production of a commodity'. Following these decisions, we have no hesitation to consider....