9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Chapter 87." The appellants availed themselves of the concessional rate. The impugned order has held that the brake linings in roll form were not eligible as they were supplied to M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. (70%) and other manufacturers of automobiles for use as brake lining. The appellants have been contending all through that brake lining in roll form cannot be readily used in motor vehicles, several processes have to be carried out before they become usable as brake lining in vehicles and it has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 211 that the processes involved in converting brake lining in roll form to usable motor vehicle part amounts to manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods require further manufacture before use in the motor vehicles is not relevant for the purpose of classification as exemption notifications are to be understood in terms of the language used in them and not in terms of tariff entry, Chapter Notes, Section Notes, etc. He has relied on the decision of the CEGAT in Pravinchandra D. Bros. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 151 in support of this submission. He submitted that further manufacture of the goods before use in vehicles is not relevant as such use after further manufacture would also satisfy the requirement. 4. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the crux of the dispute is with reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be direct and use after further processing would also qualify to be considered as use in vehicle or otherwise. That the processes carried out on the brake linings in roll form amount to manufacture as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court also does not help the appellants, inasmuch as indirect use also would qualify for the benefit. However, the appellants' submission that the demand show cause notice for the period September, 1987 to December, 1989 has to be treated as time barred has to be accepted since the appellants had informed the Central Excise authorities through their detailed letter dated 26-2-1989 that the goods are used in different machineries, but still the show cause notice was issued only on 9-5-1991. Therefore, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
