1994 (1) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Since a common issue is involved, therefore, a common order is being passed. 2.  The appellants herein are manufacturers of power driven pumps. For that purpose they also manufacture the parts of power driven pumps for being captively used in their final product, as aforesaid. It is not disputed that the appellants herein are entitle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tification." He also relies on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Dukart & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta, reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 446 (Tribunal). 4. Learned JDR, Shri K.K. Dutta, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that the lower appellate authority has not discussed the question of applicability of Explanation III to Notification No. 175/86. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the impugned order of the Asstt. Collector as well as of the lower appellate authority. We have also gone through the Notification No. 175/86. Effect of Explanation III to the said notification is very clear that the value of clearances of inputs captively used in the manufacture of final products is not to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the duty liability of the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X