Per G.R. Sharma :

The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the concession in terms of Notification No. 281/86.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel and various products of steel. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 281/86. The Department alleged that the benefit under Notification No. 281/86 will be available if the goods are manufactured in a workshop within the factory. The allegation of the Department was that the machine shop of the appellant was a factory by itself and that workshop and a factory are two different and distinct terms cannoting different things. Ld. Collector (Appeals) before whom the appellant filed an appeal held that the terms workshop and factory are two different things - one is the whole and the other is the part within that; that the functional aspects of the two are also different; that in the factory, mainstream of production work takes place whereas in the workshop within the factory some goods are manufactured to keep the mainstream ticking; that the workshop is a utility service and is not a profit making centre; that no sooner the workshop is used as a profit making centre, it automatically gets transformed into the factory and goes out of the purview of the Notification. Ld. Collector (Appeals) held that plain reading of the Notification No. 281/86 reveals that the exemption applies to the goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in the said factory or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, for repairs and maintenance. Ld. Collector (Appeals) further held that when the goods are not manufactured in the workshop within the factory, the exemption would not apply since the utility or Auxiliary Centre i.e. the workshop then turns into a productive centre in the factory itself and thus falls outside the scope of the Notification. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.

3. Shri R. Muralidharan, Sr. Manager of the appellant company submits that a ground plan of the factory will show that the machine shop where repair work is undertaken, is situated within the plant area. He submits that machine shop is nothing but a workshop where repair works for running the plant are undertaken. He submits that there are a number of decisions of this Tribunal which held that Notification No. 281/86 exempts goods manufactured in a workshop in the factory for the purpose of repair of machinery used in the factory; that the dispute raised by the Department is that a workshop and a factory cannot be equated. He submitted that this view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of the appellant himself; that the Tribunal further relied on the decision earlier taken by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. wherein this Tribunal held that workshop has not been defined and therefore, the portion of factory ramming mass and Dolomite Bricks are manufactured, can be termed as workshop. Ld. Representative of the appellant company also cited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of National Refractories reported in 1998 (104) ELT. 726 and again in the case of the appellant himself contained in Tribunal's Final Order Nos. E/752 to 754/97-B. Ld. Representative therefore, submitted that the issue has been finally decided by the Tribunal and the ratio of the judgment of this Tribunal squarely covers their case and therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed.

4. Shri Jagdish Singh, Ld. DR submits that the appellants were undertaking the machine and repair work in the factory that the factory cannot be equated with workshop; that the concession was available only if the machining part is done in the workshop and not in the factory. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below.

5. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that this issue has brought up a number of times for decision before the Tribunal. We find that