Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Shilpi Electricals Ltd. on 18 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000ECR606(TRI.-DELHI), 2000(116)ELT541(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The notice of hearing issued to the respondents received back with the postal remark 'Left'. Therefore, appeal is being taken in the absence of the res pondents.
2. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P.D. pumps and in respect of ball bearings they were availing exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and were following the procedure as laid down under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that Ball/Roller bearings are not parts of P.D. pumps but these are inputs of these pumps. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by holding that these are not parts of P.D. pumps but these are items of general use, and therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 64/86-C.E. is not available to the respondents. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the ground that the adjudication order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices because the benefit was proposed to be denied on one ground but it was denied on other ground. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) further held that Notification No. 64/86-C.E. grants exemption on parts of P.D. pumps primarily designed for handling water subject to the condition that parts are used in the said P.D. pumps and subject to the procedure laid down under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules. No further condition is laid down in the notification to the effect that the parts of the said P.D. pumps should be designed for use in the said P.D. pumps and not for use in other products.
3. Heard Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. The contention of the Revenue is that Ball/Roller bearings are of general type which can be used for manufacturing other items in addition to the said P.D. pumps. Therefore, the Ball bearings are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 64/86-C.E.
4. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that Ball bearings in question are used in the manufacture of P.D. pumps and the respondents had followed the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. We find that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Vijendra Industries vide Final Order No. E/25-30/93-B1, dated 1-2-1993 in respect of stamping and lamination used in the manufacture of P.D. pumps, held that being parts of pumps these are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 64/86-C.E. 4.1 Further, we find that the respondent is not manufacturing ball bearing on which duty is being demanded and they are only receiving ball bearing to be used in the manufacture of P.D. pumps. No SCN is issued to the manufacturer of the Ball bearing who is clearing without payment of duty. Therefore, if any duty is liable to pay on the Ball bearing the liability is on the manufacturer of the Ball bearings and not on the respondents.
5. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is rejected.