1994 (6) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. All the above appeals arise out of a common order dated 13-3-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi and are hence taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order. The issues for determination herein are : 1. Whether Wheel Barrow (Manually operated) is an agricultural implement entitled to the benefit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds etc. and therefore, cannot be considered as agricultural implements. We find that the benefit of notification has been extended in the cases of sales to agricultural organisations and the demand for the period 1-4-1978 to 26-9-1989 and subsequently for the period from 27-9-1981 to 31-3-1982 has been confirmed only in respect of wheel barrows sold to other organisations such as PWD. We agree wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant rate to be applied is the rate of duty as prevailing on the date of clearance in terms of Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. In the result, we hold as follows :- (i) Wheel Barrows are not agricultural implements entitled to the benefit of Notification 55/75. (ii) The demand of duty is confined to the period from June, 1981 onwards (as show cause notices have been issued .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X