9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BY : S/Shri K.A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate, G. Venkatesh Rao for B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him, for the Appellant. S/Shri Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate, U.A. Rana, Ms. Anuradha Priyadarshini for M/s. Gagrat & Co., Advocates with him, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Santosh Hegde, J.]. - These appeals arise out of a decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), wherein the tribunal by a majority judgment held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the exemption granted under Notification No. 217/85 as amended in regard to the parts of nozzle and nozzle holders used by them in the manufacture of an internal combustion engine (ICE - diesel oil operated). 2. Before the tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the benefit of exemption, the said learned Member held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption. Hence, he differed from the Judicial Member. 4. Consequently, the issue was referred to a third Member who framed the following points for consideration : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case parts of nozzle and nozzle holders are entitled to the benefit of notification 217/85 (as amended), as held by the Technical Member. Or they are not entitled to the benefit of the said notification and matter requires to be remanded for considering the claim of benefit of Notification 216/87-C.E., dated 15-9-1987 and Notification 112/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988, as held by the Judicial Member." 5. Considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions of the notification, parts of nozzle and nozzle holders are entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/85, as amended. Thus, by a majority the tribunal held in favour of the respondent. 6. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department before us, contended that when the notification specifically excludes the benefits of exemption to nozzle and nozzle holders, it cannot be said that parts of such nozzle and nozzle holders are not excluded by the said notification. He contended that ultimately it is these parts which constitute the nozzle and nozzle holders which the exemption notification had excluded from its benefit therefore, it cannot be said that part of a part constituting a pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent by holding that parts of the nozzle and nozzle holders are eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/85 subject to fulfilment of other conditions of the notification. The said order of the Appellate Collector has become final and is being followed by the Department till date. Learned counsel also relied upon a Board Circular No. 14/88, dated 26-5-1988 wherein it was held that in view of the fact that the parts which go into the manufacture of component parts that are in turn used in the manufacture of diesel oil operated internal combustion engines, hence, would also be entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/85 subject to fulfilment of other conditions. Therefore, in view of the above the learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
