Himson Textile Engineering Inds. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

1. although, this case was posted for admission under 2nd proviso to section 35b of the central excise act, 1944, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal after hearing shri choubey, jdr for the revenue.the appellants were not present.2. the single issue for determination is, whether a machine used for embossing the serial number on various parts of a textile machinery could be termed as capital goods in terms of rule 57q or not the original and the appellate authority have devoted considerable space and time in discussing the available case laws before arrival at the conclusion that the operation conducted by the machinery did not qualify under the term 'capital goods'. the commissioner (appeals) summed it as saying "it does not play any part in the manufacture of the finished goods".3. i observe that the phrase used in rule 57q is "processing".embossing a part with serial number is a process undertaken by the manufacturer. even the phrase "manufacture" includes all processes incidental or ancillary thereto. there was no doubt that the said machinery was used in the processing of the textile machinery parts.the machine, thus qualifies for the phrase 'capital goods'. the impugned order is set aside. the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.