9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the phrase 'component parts' in the context of claims for refund of excise duty.
Summary: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of defining 'component parts' in the context of excise duty refund claims. The Tribunal had previously distinguished between component parts and spare parts, with component parts being those initially used in assembly or manufacture, and spare parts being used for subsequent replacement of worn-out parts. A Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a different case concluded that a spare part, when used to replace a damaged or worn-out component, still qualifies as a component part. The Supreme Court agreed with the Larger Bench's interpretation, stating that a spare part, when replacing a defective part in a machine, becomes a component of the machine. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous order, with the condition that refunds would only be granted if permissible under the law. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
