9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery. The appellants did not pay duty for their products. The fact was discovered by the authorities on an inspection of the appellants' Cold Storage on 24-3-1976. The party had manufactured three diffusers each of 2500' length of 1' diametre pipe, three condensers each of 12 pipes of 20" X 2" diameter, and 5 condensers each of 12 pipes of 20" length x 2" diameter. These items had been installed in their cold storage as parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty besides imposition of penalty. The appellants contended that the parts did not attract duty under Tariff Item No. 29A(3). The appellants were only arranging the pipes and diffusers in a zig-zag way and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods were captively utilised by the appellants, they would be dutiable. On the question of applicability of the Tariff Item 29(A)(3), he pointed out that the latest ruling of the Gujarat High Court reported in the 1984 E.L.T. p. 333 (Anil Ice Factory v. Union of India & others) supported the view of the department, that cooling coils and condensers would squarely fall within the description of Item 29(A)(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. He emphasised that this judgment has considered various citations including the ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, and being the latest decision should be applicable to the present facts. He also cited the case decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Prick India Ltd. v. Union of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory. He also filed written statements on 22-3-1984 stating that the Tribunal has to follow the ruling of the High Court in the territory of which the cause of action has arisen in preference to the rulings of other High Courts on the same point. 7. We have given our anxious thought on these arguments. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in his written submission of 1976 AIR Andhra Pradesh-p. 84 (Andhra Cement Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & others) and 1973 1 Supreme Court Cases 446 (Shri Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit) have no application there in the cause of action wholly or part arose within the jurisdiction of the respective High Courts exercising -jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been amended and excisable goods manufactured in any place utilised as such should be deemed to have been removed. Admittedly, no intimation was given to the concerned authorities before the removal of the goods. The appellants cannot be heard to say that they did not manufacture any refrigerating or air-conditioning parts in the commercial sense. The mere fact that there was no sale as condensers, diffusers or compressors will not help the appellants. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in Order No. B-110/84, M/s. Ravi Dughdhalaya, Ahmedabad v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bombay, in which this Bench followed the decision in the Mother India Refrigerating Industries Pvt. Ltd. of the Hon'ble All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
