9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of excise on nozzles, nozzle holder and nozzle holders with couplings (Injection). (ii) Appeal No.E/5550/91-B filed by Collector Central Excise, Aurangabad against order-in-Appeal No. KVV-131/91/A bad dated 4-3-1991 passed by Collector (Appeals) Bombay, holding that benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 would be available to nozzle and nozzle holders which are used in the manufacture of I.C. Engines used for non vehicular purpose. 2. Shri Rohan Shah, Learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. MICO-manufacture inter alia, Nozzles, Nozzle holders and components for the same; that they also assemble together nozzle and nozzle holders which are known as injectors; that M/s. MICO have always treated the injectors as nothing but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 65 (T), held that parts of Nozzles and Nozzle holders were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/85 being parts of the diesel operated I.C. Engines; that following this decision, the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. E/585/98-B1, dated 13-4-1998 in their own case, has extended the benefit of Notification No. 217/85 to the parts of Nozzle and Nozzle holders. The Learned Advocate submitted that Department wants to levy duty on Nozzle and Nozzle holder separately whereas it is one product as held by the Tribunal in their own matter as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 290; that it was observed by the Tribunal in that matter that "If, as argued by the Assistant Collector, the Nozzle and Nozzle holder are to be regarde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the Collector (Appeals) was not justified under the impugned Order dated 4-3-1991 in extending the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 on the ground that the assessee cleared the nozzle and nozzle holders to their factory for use in the manufacture of I.C. Engines. To this extent the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. 6. The Collector (Appeals) also held, in the said impugned Order, that notification No. 75/86 is not applicable to those nozzle and nozzle holders which are used in the manufacture of I.C. Engines used for non-vehicular operation. He has also denied the exemption under Notification No. 217/85 to nozzle and nozzle holders. The assessee company has filed cross objection against denial of Notification No. 75/86 contendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in some measure to modify the enacting clause. In view of this we agree with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that the assessee's submission that for non vehicular operation also, they should get the benefit of duty exemption for nozzles and nozzle holder can not be accepted. Accordingly there is no merit in cross objection which is rejected. In cross objection, the assessee Company has not challenged the findings of the Collector (Appeals) regarding denial of Notification No. 217/85 to nozzles and nozzle holders. Accordingly the Appeal No.E/5550/91-B filed by revenue is allowed and cross objection E/cross/64/98-B filed by M/s. MICO is rejected. 7. The learned Advocate for the Assessee Company has also mentioned that under the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fers to injectors and not to 'nozzles' and 'nozzle holders' separately. It has been mentioned by the Assessee Company in their Memorandum of Appeals that they "manufacture Nozzles, Nozzle holders and components for the same. The Appellants also assemble together Nozzles and Nozzle Holders. Nozzles and Nozzle Holders so assembled together are known as Injectors". It is thus apparent from their submissions itself that Nozzles and Nozzle Holders mentioned in the Notification are two different items and not as one item. The issue involved in CCE v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., 1989 (43) E.L.T. 290 was whether Nozzle fitted with nozzle holders known as injector was assessable under Item 68 of the Old Central Excise Tariff although the nozzle and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 217/85 for the components and parts used in nozzle and nozzle holders by their supplementary C.L. No. 2/89 dated 20-8-1989 and the Collector had denied the exemption to parts which go into the manufacture of nozzle and nozzle holders. It was contended by M/s. MICO in that case that they were not claiming the benefit for nozzle and nozzle holders but were claiming the benefit for its component parts, as nozzle and nozzle holders were already exempt under Notification Nos. 112/89 and 216/87. They have not brought any material on record to show that the benefit of Notification No. 217/85 was extended by the Tribunal in that case to "Nozzles" and "Nozzle Holders" and not to only pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
