2005 (98) ECC 226 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi -- Bench-NB-B

Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President and Shri C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula

Versus

Saraswati Sugar Mills

Appeal No. E/2568/2003-NB

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 301/AKG/PCK/2003 dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-III]

Final Order No. 814/2004-B, dt. 27.9.2004, Certified on 15.10.2004

Classification (C. Excise)

Supporting structure of Steel is classifiable under Chapter Heading 73 of CETA, 1985 -- Which is not covered under the definition of capital goods -- Exemption provided under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 is not available.

Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995

Supporting structure of Steel not covered under the definition of capital goods exemption not provided as it is available only for `capital goods' manufactured in the factory.

Capital goods

Supporting structure of steel it is not covered under the definition of capital goods -- Exemption provided under the Notification No. 67/95-CE-dated 16.3.1995 is available only for `capital goods' manufactured in the factory -- Exemption under Notification No. 67/95 is not available in respect of Steel structure.

Appeal allowed

PRESENT :

Shri Vikas Kumar, SDR for the appellant.

Shri Ravi Raghavan, Consultant for the respondent.

Case Cited :

Saraswati Sugar Mills v. CCE, Delhi-III, 2003 (87) ECC 203 (T).............................. [Para 2]

Per : S.S. Kang

Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 was allowed in respect of the supporting structures of steel.

2. The contention of the Revenue is that the supporting structure of steel is classifiable under chapter heading 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff and as per the definition of "capital goods" goods falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 7308 are excluded from the definition of capital goods. Therefore, to avail the benefit of Notification which provides exemption to capital goods, manufacture in the factory first the goods are to fall under definition of capital goods. The Revenue relied upon the respondent's own case [Saraswati Sugar Mills v. CCE, Delhi-III, 2003 (87) ECC 203 (T) : 2003 (56) RLT 639 where the Tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is not available in respect of steel platform Ladders, Juice sheeters and Pan which are captively used as structures.

3. The contention of the respondent is that steel structures are used as supporting structure for installation of sugar mill machinery like Pan Station and Evaporation Station. Therefore, these become part of the plant and machinery and they are capital goods as per the definition provided under Rule 57 AA of Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that in this case dispute is regarding the structure of steel, which is fabricated in the factory. The structure is classifiable under Chapter Heading 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which is not covered under the definition of "capital goods". The exemption provided under the Notification No. 67/95-CE is not available in respect of the steel structures manufactured by the respondent, as the exemption is available only for "capital goods" manufactured in the factory. In these facts and circumstances and in view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in respondent's own case, the impugned order is set aside and the Revenue's appeal is allowed.

……………………….