1996 (9) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appropriate rates on the Rotors and Stators and when these Rotors and Stators were fixed with the shaft to make the mono block pump, the duty was again charged as leviable on electric motors with set-off of the duty already paid on Rotors and Stators. Afterwards, they filed a refund claim on the ground that no excise duty was payable on the stage when the Rotors and Stators were used in the manufacture of mono block pump. It was their contention that electric motors as commercially understood does not come into existence and that once the Rotors and Stators are fixed on the Shaft of the pump it is the pump and not the motor which come into existence. It is seen that the Asstt. Collector had accepted their contention and had sanctioned refun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stence at any stage. The stators and rotors form the component parts of mono block pumps. The stators and rotors when manufactured and assembled with casing, chamber stuffing boxes, impeller, etc. are known only as mono block pump and the electric motor does not come into existence in an identifiable and separable manner. 3. The matter relates to the old Central Excise Tariff when under T.I. 30 electric motor and parts of electric motors including rotors and stators were separately classifiable. There was a provision that if rotors and stators after paying duty are used in the manufacture of electric motors then set-off will be available. The respondents had already paid duty as applicable to the parts of electric motors and both the Asst .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they had mistakenly stated that electric motors had been used for mono block pumps whereas only rotors and stators, which were integral component parts of mono block pumps, have been used. The Supreme Court observed that it was a question of fact and did not entertain the plea of the appellants before them. 7. In the particular case before us both the lower authorities had taken a view that the assessee was required to pay duty on stators and rotors under T.I. 30D of the Tariff and that the electric motor did not come into existence independently in an identifiable manner in the sense that the same was not separable easily and could not be marketed as electric motors. 8. Viewed in this light and taking all the relevant considerations i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X