9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of EL. P.EM. Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 681. 4. The learned DR admitted to distinguish this judgment and claim that the items become part and parcel of an electric motors, hence they are required to be classified in Tariff Item 30D or in alternative Tariff Item 30A. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the citation referred to before us. The Tribunal after careful consideration of the issue has held that the items are classifiable under T.I. 30D but would be classifiable under the then Tariff Heading 68. While coming to the conclusion, the Tribunal has relied on the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 13 and that of Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 18. The findings given by the Tribunal in para 8 9 are reproduced herein below :- 8. Coming to the merits of the appeal, we find that a number of clarifications by way of Circulars and Trade Notices were issued by the department wherein it was clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ething more like solenoid and its all other connecting parts without which self-starter will not work. The learned Counsel also relied upon heavily on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. In this case, the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that the duty under Tariff Item 33(2) of the erstwhile Tariff Item is attracted on such electric fans which are not only designed for use but are indispensable for its operation. The entry has to be read both widely and narrowly. Widely as the goods designed for use as mentioned irrespective of shape would be taxable under this tariff. Narrow because it must be electric fan. Therefore, hubs and blades known as `Blade Assembly is not an electric fan and hence not classifiable under Tariff Item 33(2) to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 33(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff because of the fans at the time of removal from the factory did not have any electric motor or any other kind of device to generate electricity. Rather the fans were mounted on the shaft of the motor. Now let us examine what Tariff Entry reads. It reads as under :- Tariff Item No. Description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs are packed with end ring inside the cast iron body, pressed in hydraulic press and locked. Next end cover seating, machining, drilling, tapping are done. By these operations, the body or the casing of the monobloc is formed and in that casing, coil winding is done. (This is being construed as a stator portion of motor by the Department). (b) Likewise, stampings packed are pressed in hydraulic press and locked. It is pressure die-casted, and thereafter machining and other operations are carried on the same. Then, it is inserted into the shaft of the monobloc pump. (This is being construed as a rotor portion of motor by the Department)." 9. This shows that stators and rotors do not come into existence independently but the whole process of manufacturing monobloc set pump is an integrated process and therefore, only the monobloc pump as a whole constitutes the final product which was excisable. In other words, no intermediate product in the nature of marketable rotors or stators comes into existence. Therefore, they were not excisable and not chargeable to duty at all. Hence, no question of exemption arises and the point was irrelevant. 10. This also shows that the Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hatnagar) Vice President 13. When this difference of opinion matter came up for hearing before me, as the third Member, Shri V. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellants in these eleven appeals stated that they are not pressing the point that the items in question namely rotors and stators are not excisable goods at all. He submitted that the order proposed by the learned Judicial Member holding that the said rotors and stators are classifiable under Tariff Heading 68 of the Central Excise Tariff as applicable at the material time and not under item 30D as Parts of electric motors may be concurred with. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative conceded that the matter stands concluded by the Tribunal decision in EL.P.EM. Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, which has been reported in 1995 (70) E.L.T. 681. He left the matter for decision by the Bench. 14. I have taken note of the submissions. I have perused the record. On a careful scrutiny of the two separate orders proposed by the learned Judicial Member and the learned Vice President, it is seen that both of them have held the appeals are to be allowed setting aside the impugned orders, the only differenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to existence as separately identifiable marketable commodity. This conclusion, I find, goes beyond the grounds agitated by the appellants in their appeal. The order proposed by the learned Judicial Member follows the earlier decision of the Tribunal relating to one of the present appellants. The question that the goods are not dutiable at all was not the issue raised in the appeal and it was also not argued before the Bench. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the appellant specifically submitted that they are not pressing for the acceptance of the view that the goods are not excisable at all as held by the learned Vice President in his order. In that view of the matter, I agree with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member in his order which follows the earlier decision of the Tribunal reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 681 that the rotors and stators come into existence independently as excisable goods classifiable under Tariff Item 68. 17. The papers may be placed before the regular Bench for passing the final order in accordance with the majority view. Sd/- (K. Sankararaman) Member (T) FINAL ORDER In acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
