9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. By the said order, the learned Appellate Collector held that Rotors Stators, which went in as component parts in the manufacture of P.D. Pumps were captively consumed and were not chargeable to Central Excise duty with reference to Rule 9 read with Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty could be charged on P.D. Pump as a whole and not on each component part separately. 2. The appellants filed a Classification List in respect of eight items of excisable goods claiming Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 57/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Varanasi by his order dated 3-2-1979, held that the appellants were liable to pay duty on Electric Rotors, Stators and Armatures under Tariff Item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this amendment in the Rules, the ground on which the Appellate Collector had granted relief to the respondents was untenable and the Appellate Order would have, therefore, to be set aside. 5. Shri K. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the respondents however resisted the show cause notice on other grounds. These grounds are : that the subject goods i.e. rotors and stators are in fact specially designed components for being fitted into a P.D. Monoblock pump set. These components are incapable of being used as parts for the assembly of Electric Motors. He further contended that the rotors and stators are not known in trade parlance as parts of Electric Motors but only as component parts of Monoblock pump sets for which they are specially de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts of Electric Motors. 6. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Senior Departmental Representative appearing for the appellants strongly urged that the respondent should not be allowed to urge new grounds other than those urged before the Appellate Collector in defence of the show cause notice. 7. Shri Narasimhan, learned Counsel in support of his contention that the Tribunal had wide powers in allowing new grounds to be raised, relied on the following decisions : (i) Hukam Chand Mills v. C.I.T. - (1967) 63 ITR 232 (S.C.); (ii) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills - (1967) 66 ITR 710 (S.C.); (iii) (1967) 66 ITR 722 (S.C.) in the case of C.I.T. v. Nelloppon; (iv) Sh. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India Ors - 1984 (16) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent by denying them leave to raise other grounds that they now seek to urge which as already stated above, were raised by them before the Appellate Collector. For the purpose, the matter would have to be remanded to the Appellate Collector, now Collector (Appeals) for decision of the appeal on other grounds urged by the respondent other than Rules 9 49 of the Rules which are not available to the respondent in view of the amendment. 9. As a result of the discussion, the order passed by the Appellate Collector is set aside and the matter remanded to him for de novo decision in the light of new grounds urged by the respondent (appellant before the Appellate Collector) and the evidence produced before the Tribunal and such further eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
