Full Judgment
Ltd., the matter relates to the applicability of exemption under Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 to the Dies for Drawing Metal Strips. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division "E", Bombay-I, had taken a view that the Dies used for drawing strips were not covered by the aforesaid Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The appeal filed by M/s. Devidayal Non-Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.
2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, who is present for the respondent/Revenue and have gone through the facts on record.
3. The Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 is reproduced below :- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 72/83-Central Excises, dated the 1st March, 1983, the Central Government hereby exempts tools designed to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools, or tools for working in the hand (pneumatic or with self-contained non-electric or electric motor), including dies for wire drawing, extrusion dies for metals and rock drilling bits falling under Chapter 82 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944): Provided that where such use is in a factory of a manufacturer, different from his factory where the said tools have been manufactured, the exemption contained in this notification, shall be allowable subject to the observance of the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. this notification shall come into force on 28th day of February, 1986.
4. We find that there is no dispute that the Dies in question were tools and that they have been designed to be fitted into machine tools.
The exemption provides that among others the tools designed to be fitted into machine tools were eligible for the exemption. It had been added that the tools so eligible for exemption will include Dies for Wire Drawing, Extrusion Dies for Metals and Rock Drilling falling under Chapter Heading No. 82 of the Tariff. There is no dispute that the Dies in question were classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 82 of the Tariff.
5. We consider that the expression "including" does not mean that the exemption was limited only to such products as specifically included, If the goods were otherwise covered by the provisions of the exemption then the benefit could not be denied only on the ground that they had not been specifically included in the exemption. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam -1994 (51) ECR 436 (Tribunal), it has been held that items included with the prefix "including" would be of the type about which there could be some doubt as to whether they are covered or not by the main entry. The item about which there is no scope for doubt or there is comparatively less scope for doubt would accordingly stand automatically covered by the main item in the entry. There is no doubt that by including the Dies for Wire Drawing and Extrusion Dies for Metals, the scope of the exemption is not excluded insofar as the Dies used for Drawing Strips are concerned.
6. After going through the Exemption Notification extracted above, we do not agree with the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay and as a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.