9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head assembly and conducts water from bowl assembly to head assembly comprising of column pipe, shaft and closing tube and shaft assembly in the case of oil lubricated pumps and column pipe and shaft assembly only in the case of water lubricated pumps. The bowl assembly and column asembly constitutes a typical vertical turbine pump along with the third item viz head assembly , consisting of the base from which the column, shaft assembly and the bowl assembly are suspended, which discharges the water into the delivering pipe systems. 2. From March 1972 to August 1973, Central Excise duty was collected from the respondents, under Item No. 30A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff in respect of clearances of bowl assembly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have carefully gone through the case records, the submission made in the appeal and those urged at the time of personal hearing on 7-7-81. The case of the appellants as explained by Mr. B.C. Das, Accounts Manager of the appellants is that Bowl Assembly of Power Driven Pump is not liable to excise duty under Item 30A of the C.E.T. if it is cleared by itself and not with the complete power driven pump. This was accepted by the Central Excise Department and intimated to them by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcuta-VII Divn. In his letter dated 21-1-74 and in the letter dated 14-3-74 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Assessment Unit No. 2. Their refund claim in respect of duty paid on Bowl Assembly of the power driv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vert mechanical energy into kinetic energy of the liquid and since it is only the Bowl Assembly which performs that function, it is to be considered as a power driven pump by itself falling under Item 30A of the said Schedule. This contention seems to find support in the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Jyoti Ltd., Baroda v. Union of India another (As reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 546). 5. We have heard both sides and considered the submissions. We find :- (a) In an Appeal No. E/SB-489/1982, filed by the respondent herein, arising out of Order-in-Original No. 175(68)82-COLLR-45(82), vide Order No. M-1213-1214/A-1226/2001 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 415 (T)], we had held that the entities as herein w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery v. ACCE, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 35-42 (Cal.), therefore, it is only those goods which get excluded from the description of goods from the other tariff item in whatever manner, such goods shall be deemed to be goods not specified in that item and thus becoming goods not specified elsewhere for the purposes of Item 68, as held in Hico Products Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.). When we find that when Revenue views and holds, the entities to be classifiable under tariff item 68, no classification under Tariff Item 30A earlier could be resorted to when we follow the above decisions since there is no change in Tariff Item 30A brought on record before us after the introduction of Tariff Item 68. (b) We also find, that in the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
