9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Penalty Rs. E-254/92 29,98,176.97 3,50,000.00 E-332/92 15,96,413.87 1,00,000.00 E-333/92 11,06,472.91 1,00,000.00 2. The appellants were, during the period material for the purpose of these appeals, engaged in the manufacture of electric motor pumps. The dispute involved in the present appeals is as to whether Bowl Assembly, Column Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly together constitute P.D. Pumps and are entitled to exemption to different Notifications during different periods involved in all the three appeals and whether Bowl Assembly alone has to be treated as P.D. Pumps and the other two i.e Column Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly, have to be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not pertain to classification of parts involved in the present appeals. The main issue before the Gujarat High Court was as regards the assessable value of Power Driven Pumps. He also submits that the Govt. of India has filed an appeal against the above order of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. However, he has failed to bring it to our notice as to whether the said decision of the Gujarat High Court has been stayed by the Hon ble Apex Court or not. 5. Arguing on the point of limitation, Shri Banerjee submits that the C/Lists for the period in question were duly approved by the proper officer; RT-12 returns were being filed by them and the Department was in the knowledge of the fact that the exemption is being claimed by them in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained by the appellants. Similarly, the description given in the Gate Passes did not disclose that these two parts are also being cleared as P.D. Pumps after availing the exemption notification. He, further, submits that after the Gujarat High Court s judgment which was published in the year 1979, it was the duty of the appellants to file fresh C/Lists in accordance with the decision laid down by the Hon ble High Court. Having failed to do so, the appellants have suppressed and also misstated the facts from the Department with an intention to evade payment of duty. In these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the appeals. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides and have gone through the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and liquid is forced out by great pressure from the pump itself. So far as column assembly and discharge head assembly are concerned, they merely enable water to pass out from the bowl assembly and they enable the shaft to supply rotary action to the veins of the impellers so far as column assembly is concerned. The discharge head assembly merely keeps the bowl assembly and column assembly suspended at the appropriate depth so that liquid could be forced out. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that what is driven by the power is the impeller in the bowl assembly and the rest merely provides the housing or casing through which water rushed out or the shaft passes for the purpose of moving impeller. It is thus clear that what is drive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do is properly understood, it is obvious that column assembly and the discharge head assembly and other objects referred to in the order dated items 1 and 5 as those which are claimed as accessories by the petitioner, are in fact accessories because none of those objects performs the essential function of converting mechanical energy of the impeller into kinetic energy of the liquid in question. Hence the order of the Assistant Collector dated June 16, 1976, and the order of the Central Government in revision dated June 31, 1978, both proceeded on wrong footing altogether, when they treated the column assembly and the discharge head assembly as components or essential elements of power driven pumps manufactured by the appellant. 9. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wiser after the Gujarat High Court decision and instead of approving C/Lists for all the three assemblies taken together as pump for the subsequent period, did not accord approval in respect of bowl assembly only; No doubt, the appellants have only declared power driven pump in their C/List without disclosing the various assemblies constituting the pump, but a question arises as to whether it can be said that Revenue was not aware of the fact that the appellants are manufacturing all the three assemblies and clearing them as power driven pump. The Order of Asstt. Collector passed in 1973 imparts knowledge upon the Revenue and belies their stand that the Department was not aware of the factual position. In these circumstances, it is difficu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
