Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M.M. Forgings Ltd. on 15 April, 1997

Maruti Udyog Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 January, 1998

In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. MM. Forgings reported in [1997 (89) E.L.T. 617], the Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vi Rajasthan Chemical Works (cited supra) held that the term 'capital goods' has to be read in the context of the use of the equipment in the assessee's factory and what has to be seen is whether equipment used is a part of the manufacturing stream in the assessee's factory and whether the use is for production or processing or for bringing about any change in the materials used in the manufacture of final product, in that case, the goods were four Fork lifts used for lifting raw materials from one place to another place within the respondent's factory. The respondents had pleaded that unless iron forgings of various sizes manufactured by them are lifted and materials out of which they are manufactured are transported, the manufacturing process is not possible. The Tribunal observed that the respondents' claim will have to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and hence remanded the matter to the lower authority for this purpose, holding that if the respondents were able to show that the use of fork lifts is essential in their factory and that without the use of the same, the final product could not be manufacture, they would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 December, 1998

In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Forgings reported in [1997 (89) E.L.T. 617], the Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Chemical Works (cited supra) held that the term 'capital goods' has to be read in the context of the use of the equipment in the assessees factory and what has to be seen is whether equipment used is a part of the manufacturing stream in the assessees factory and whether the use is for production or processing or for bringing about any change in the materials used in the manufacture of final product. In that case, the goods were four Fork lifts used for lifting raw materials from one place to another place within the respondents factory. The respondents had pleaded that unless iron forgings of various sizes manufactured by them are lifted and materials out of which they are manufactured are transported, the manufacturing process is not possible. The Tribunal observed that the respondents' claim will have to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and hence remanded the matter to the lower authority for this purpose, holding that if the respondents were able to show that the use of fork lifts is essential in their factory and that without the use of the same, the final product could not be manufactured, they would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 28 July, 1997

Likewise in the case of C.C.E. v. M.M. Forgings cited supra, the issue however, related to the scope of the term capital goods and other items of machinery etc. which were used for producing or processing or for bringing about any change in any substance for manufacture of the finished product fell for consideration. We have in that case held that if it could be shown that use of Fork lift truck was essential for the purpose of carrying out the manufacturing activity then handling could be treated as process of manufacture in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Chemical Works cited supra. The question that fell for consideration was whether the process of lifting of the goods would be bringing the item in question within the ambit of the definition of capital goods as defined under Rule 57Q. In the present case, we find that the words used in the Notification are that the goods should be used in the manufacture or in the repair of certain specified goods. The term "used" should be given a wider meaning only to the extent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is used for process which is integrally connected with the manufacture of the goods in question. Therefore, what has to be seen is that what is the process of the manufacture of the notified goods in question the use of which the notification permits. It has not been shown that the manufacture of the goods in the present case is in any way integrally connected with the use of the Caisson Gate in question. The Caisson Gate in question, from the use as has been set out in the order of the authorities below is only to provide a barrier for the water to be brought in or to be kept out. The Caisson Gate therefore, provides a structural function like a door to make dry dock area ready for carrying out the operation for the manufacture of the goods falling under tariff heading set out under the Notification. It is possible that with the help of this Caisson Gate, necessary environment is created for the manufacture of the goods in question by providing a dry place and that cannot be equated with the process of manufacture of the goods in question. The process of manufacture of the goods in question may start with the preparation of the materials and taking up the structural work for various operations with reference to that. The use of the Caisson Gate can be taken to be in relation to the manufacture of goods but the notification does not give the assessee benefit in respect of goods which are used in relation to the manufacture of the notified finished product as these words are missing in the notification. The word "used" in the manufacture has to be taken with reference to the integrality of operations of the manufacture of a given product. Various processes involve in the manufacture of a given product for the beginning and end. The manner in which Caisson Gate is used cannot be taken to be in any way integrally connected with the process of manufacture of the products falling under different chapter headings as set out therein. The key to the scope of the Notification can also be found from the fact that the benefit of the Notification in respect of the goods is given when the same are used in the manufacture of the goods failing under Headings 89.01 and 89.02, 89.04, 89.05. The same is not available in respect of the goods falling under these headings which are in the nature of floating or submersible drilling or production platform. These excluded items are manufactured in the shipyard and the Caisson Gate would also be used to facilitate manufacture of these items in the shipyard . If the benefit of notification is extended to the goods in question, then it would become available also for floating, drilling and production platform. Viewed in this background therefore, it is clear that the benefit is only available when the items in question are directly used in the manufacture or repair of the goods falling under specified headings and not in the manner in which the goods in question are used. We, therefore, hold that there is no force in the plea of the appellants and we dismiss the appeal.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nova Iron And Steels Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 31 July, 1997

Similarly while dealing with a similar case in Collector of Central Excise v. MM. Forgings Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 617, this Tribunal held that fork lift is a material handling equipment and will be eligible for Modvat credit. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 258 held that Modvat credit will be admissible on fixtures and baskets as "the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q covers not only machines machinery but also components, spare parts and accessories' of the machines etc. In the circumstances, the objection taken by local authorities does not appeal to me. I therefore, allowed the appeal". We note that conveyor belt is nothing but a material handling equipment. In view of the above discussions the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with the law.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat Guardians Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 26 November, 1997

In CCE v. M.M. Forgings - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 617 the Tribunal held that fork lift trucks which are used for transporting raw materials and products or components are capital goods because without them raw-material could not be transported to the place wherever required for processing and, therefore, that use was essential. The same reasoning would apply to the racks. The Commissioner has noted that the contention of the assessee before him that the G racks are vised to shift transport glass one its form such as to the second stage of products, i.e. they used to transport the glass in an intermediate stage or in semi-finished condition. In his discussion he accepts the contention that they [are] used for shifting the goods from the furnace to the subsidiary line where glass is washed and packed in wooden cases. The goods manufactured by the appellant, cannot be considered to have reached the final stage of manufacture unless they are packed. That is to say "G racks" help to render the goods marketable. It is settled law that anything which is required to render the goods marketable is manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act be true as the departmental representative stated that the G racks are essential and other equipments could be used in the transport of glass. In that case however, such other equipment would qualify for same consideration such "G" racks. In fact the Commissioner has himself held a hydraulic crane which he says is used to shift semi-manufactured goods for further processing, or to pack finished glass to be capital goods. If that is the case this would have to be some other specific reason for considering G racks separately. They perform the same function as the hydraulic cranes. No such reason is given. It has, therefore, to be held that these goods are capital goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1