NITIN SPINNERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, in brief, are as under : -

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) LEARNED D.R. strongly pleads that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit. The learned Counsel is submitting that humidification plant is obviously covered by the capital goods. The humidification plant is incomplete without the provision of false ceilings without which the functioning of the plant would be ineffective. It is obvious that "fibre glass and aluminium channels" themselves do not act as components of humidification plant. They are fitted in the false ceilings. The false ceiling is civil structure. The false ceiling is not part of the humidification plant. The false ceiling is provided in location where humidification plant is operational so as to ensure that the efficiency of the plant is achieved. The false ceiling is merely a work of redesigning the site where the humidification plant is located so that the plant can work with efficiency. If false ceilings, as argued by the appellants, were to be considered as part of the humidification plant, then by that logic every window panes or door in an air -conditioning room will also qualify to be a part of the air -conditioner. This is totally an absurd argument and cannot be supported. Accordingly, I hold that the appeal is without any merits and is accordingly rejected.