Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Thermax Surface Coating Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(145)ELT356(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After allowing the application for early hearing of the above appeal on the ground that the issue in dispute stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. Pursuant to the contract entered with M/s. Godrej GE Appliances Ltd. the appellant herein set up a paint shop (Spray Pre-treatment set up) in the factory premise of that company to be used by it for manufacture of paint. The components were purchased by the appellants from the market and assembled them at site, resulting in the emergence of the Spray Pretreatment set up. Notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants had manufactured two Spray Pre treatment set ups classifiable under Heading 84.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and demanding duty at the rate applicable under the Tariff Act and also proposing imposition of penalty. In the order which is under challenge before the Tribunal, the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 66,62,841/- and imposed penalty of amount equal to the duty.
3. The appellants' contention before us is confined to their alternative argument that even if it is held that the said Set Ups are goods liable to duty, it would be entitled to benefit of exemption contained in Notification No. 67/95 which interalia exempts from duty on capital goods defined in Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules, manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production. We find that this benefit has been extended to the appellants by the final order No.C.I./1819-21/WZB/2001 dated 14.7.01 in the case of a contract for setting up a paint shop in the factory premises of Indian Refrigeration Co., Chennai. That order in turn relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2000(36) RLT 619] wherein the Tribunal has over ruled the objection of the department that the benefit is not available since the goods were used by some other persons in the factory.
4. Following the ratio of the above two orders, we hold that the appellants herein are entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95 and hence set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to them.
(Dictated in Court)