9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d one order in respect of two orders in original, the Bench condoned the delay and commenced the hearing of the two appeals. 2. The appellants were correct when they said in their revision petition dated 12-10-1981 that the Appellate Collector entered into the aspect of classification which was not a dispute before him for determination. The only dispute was whether end-use certificates were necessary for the purpose of notification No. 99/71-CE. 3. By his order in appeal No. 524/BD-21/81 and 525/BD-22/81 dated 25th April, 1981 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected preferential assessment under notification No. 99/71-CE, because he said the springs were not classifiable under tariff item 34A. It was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities' contention that the springs were used in the manufacture of parts and accessories of motor vehicles and not directly used in vehicles. And notification No. 99/71-CE did not prescribe production of end-use certificate. Therefore, the department had no legal authority to demand such certificates and to deny their lawful claim. If the department wanted to conduct enquiries into the end-use, they were free to do so, but they could not compel the assessees to submit to something not prescribed by law. The lower authorities said that the springs were used not in motor parts but in making parts of motor car parts. 7. The learned counsel Mr. Vora for the appellants argued on the above lines. 8. He also repeated that a part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hicles. For example, a spring can go into a shock absorber. In such a case only the shock absorber is distinguisable, but it cannot be said that the spring has become a part of the motor vehicle. A nut that goes in a wheel that is put on the motor vehicle cannot be said to be a part of the motor vehicle. It is only a part of the wheel, even though the motor vehicle cannot run without the wheel. Similarly, a motor vehicle cannot run without its carburettor, but a part of a carburettor does not become a part of the motor vehicle. 12. The opposite counsel said that there was no hearing before the Assistant Collector. For this the learned SDR quoted 1983 (2) ETR 483. The Appellate Collector heard them and they are now being heard before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e can see nothing wrong in this. The exemption notification No. 99/71-CE itself exempted "parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors (including trailers) falling under item No. 34A of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act", from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The lower authorities, the Assistant Collector the Appellate Collector, viewed this notification as exempting only those parts it they are really parts of motor vehicles, and the reason is clear. Parts of motor vehicles can be used in a large number of applications. Bolts and nuts, wheels, springs and many others can easily find uses elsewhere than in motor vehicles. For example, one has seen frequently wheels and tyres of motor vehicles be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have become a part of a motor vehicle for that officer. The appellants say they do not understand what the Assistant Collector meant by saying that the springs were used in manufacture of parts of motor vehicles and not directly used in vehicles. He (Assistant Collector) meant only that the use of the parts in the parts does not prove that the whole thing is going into a motor vehicle. This is where his demand for the end-use certificate acquire its cutting edge. Quite clearly if an end-use certificate can be produced for this, the spring in the shock absorber can be said to have been used in the motor vehicle and to have integrated into it. However, if the Assistant Collector means something else by not directly used in the vehicles, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the assessment already made under item 68. As the goods have already left central excise control and have been cleared, we do not see on what grounds the reassessment can be done to allow the exemption and the refund claim to be made. Even if the difficulty about end-use and end-use certificates and other problems had not arisen, this would still he a big stumbling block over which we do not know how M/s. Sarang Spring manufacturing Company propose to get over. However, we will leave it to them to convince the central excise authorities, if they can, on this matter. 19. In respect of the rejection by the Superintendent of their claim for assessment under notification No. 99/71-CE, we have already discussed the matter above; they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
