9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, C.A., for the Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the Reflector is eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 62/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as part of a bicycle. 2. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture, inter alia, reflectors which are captively consumed by them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since a cycle can be used, without a dynamo, it is not part of a cycle. Similarly, again Madras High Court in the case of T.I. Miller v. UOI, 1987 (31) E.L.T. 344 (Mad.) has held that a thing is a part of the other only if the other is incomplete without it. A thing is an accessory of the other only if the thing is not essential for the other but only adds to its convenience or effectiveness. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal allowed the exemption to hardware rings which were used in the manufacture of cycle-tyre holding that what goes into the manufacture of a cycle tyre is also a part of cycle . He also relied upon the decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 599 (T) wherein it was held that parts of parts are also parts of machine. The learned Chartered Accountant submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajaj Auto case, supra, does not help the case of the respondents. Notification No. 63/86 only exempts accessories and not the parts of accessories. When the notification is silent about the exemption to the parts of accessories, the benefit cannot be extended to the parts of the accessories. It is settled law that when the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
