Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Quadromatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994ECR384(TRI.-DELHI), 1994(71)ELT452(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. In all these matters, common question of facts and law are involved. Hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wound Stators and Rotors of various sizes and which are sold to M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL) for the manufacture of 'Hermetically Sealed Compressors'.
2. Appeal No. E/913-91/B1 pertaining to Quadromatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. arises from the order-in- appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) Pune. In all these appeals the question that arises for consideration is with regard to the correct classification of Stators and Rotors. The appellants had filed Classification List describing these goods as 'parts suitable for use solely or principally for electric motors falling under Heading 86.01' and the appellants had further added 'for Hermetically Sealed Compressors'. The Department had issued show cause notices to the individual appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why their goods namely stators and rotors should not be treated as parts of the compressors (falling under 8414.10) and therefore, classification under 8414.91 with an effective rate of duty of 40% as per the Notification No. 166/86-C.E., dt. 1-3-1986 instead of being treated as parts of electric motors (falling under Heading 85.01) and, therefore, classified under 85.03. The effective rate of duty is 20% if the stators and rotors are treated as parts of electric motors and 40% if they are treated as parts of compressors. The Assistant Collector after observing the principles of natural justice has in these impugned orders held that the stators and rotors are parts of compressors and, therefore, they are to be classified under sub-heading 8414.91 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985. He has further confirmed the differential duty in respect of the appellants for different period as noted herein below :
Amount of duty Period involved
confirmed.
______________ ________________
Rs.
M/s. Hematic Motors 2,10,60,108/- 1-3-1987 to 31-12-1989
Pvt. Ltd., Karad
M/s. Saraswati Udyog 48,18,150/- 1-4-1987 to 31-12-1989
M/s. Quadromatic Engg. 1,10,79,070/- 1-4-1987 to 31-12-1989
Pvt. Ltd., Karad
3. The Asstt. Collector has observed that a compressor consists of various parts viz. Crank shaft, Stators, Rotors, Valves, Gaskets etc. and that though there is a separate sub-heading for crank shaft i.e. 8384.00, valves (8421.80), Gaskets (8484.00), there is no such separate heading or sub-heading for stators and rotors. He has relied upon Note 2(a) to Section XVI which lays down that parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or 85 are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings. He has, therefore, held that since stators and rotors are integral parts of the compressors they are to be classified in the same heading as that of the compressors. He has further held that the stators and rotors in question have no other application except to be fitted in the Hermetically Sealed Compressors and, therefore, they are parts or components which are solely or principally used in the manufacture of Hermetically Sealed Compressors and therefore, as per Note 2(b) to Section XVI they will be classified alongwith compressors under Heading 84.14. He has observed that in the Hermatically Sealed Compressors, the compressor portion is undetachable from the motor portion and the entire compressor is to be assessed as an item of machinery rather than as prime mover, i.e. a motor. He has rejected the contention of the appellants that the classification once decided cannot be reopened and in this context, he has relied on the Tribunal's ruling rendered in the case of Indian Textile Paper Jute v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 35. He has further held that the certificates of various technical institutions are not binding on him for the purpose of deciding the classification. He has further held that in the manufacture of Hermetically Sealed Compressor, no article or goods or machinery like electric motors comes into existence and, therefore, there is no question of treating the stators and rotors as parts of motors.
4. The ld. Collector has recorded in detail the various arguments put-forth before him and after a due consideration of all the pleadings, he has passed a detail reasoned order rejecting the appellant's contention and hence these appeals. The ld. Collector has held that the stators and rotors manufactured by the appellants do not come into the electric motor as an essential parts. On the other hand, the said items are directly sold to M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL) and there is not a single sale of these rotors and stators to a person who is engaged in the manufacture of electric motors. He has also recorded a question of fact that the stators and rotors are being used in the manufacture of compressors only and not in the manufacture of motors. He has also held that the appellants have not claimed that the rotors and stators are used by their customer to manufacture motors and it is then installed in the compressors. As regards the affidavits and testimonials produced by the appellants, the ld. Collector has observed that these materials with the stators and rotors are used as parts in the manufacture of electric motors and which are further used to drive appliances such as gas compressors, monoblock pumps etc. He has observed that the appellants should have shown me the Motor which is first manufactured by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. before it is installed in a compressor. He has held that the department's case all along had been that the motors never come into physical existence and that claim has not been denied by the appellants. The appellants claim only had been that these two parts functioned together as a motor. Therefore, the ld. Collector has held that the various affidavits and the certificates cannot be relied upon because the motor does not come into any physical existence at all. The ld. Collector after noting the Explanatory Notes as well as Notes 2 and 3 of Section XVI has observed that Note 2(a) is not applicable since the rotors and stators have not been specifically named anywhere in the Central Excise Tariff. He has held that the reason for not mentioning these two items as parts of the electric motors is that these two products can be parts of many other machines or appliances. For e.g. a rotor can be a part of a electric motor, a compressor and even a rotary engine. He has relied on page 551 of the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, it has been explained that one of the various types of rotary engine is the eccentric rotor engine, wherein motion is imparted to a shaft by a principal rotating part or rotor, i.e. eccentric to the shaft. The Wankel engine (page 553) is one such type of engine and the rotor is an important part of this engine. Therefore, the ld. Collector has held that since the rotors and stators are not specifically named in the Central Excise Tariff, therefore, Section Note 2 has been applied,. In this context, the ld. Collector has also relied on the Explanatory Notes of HSN. The ld. Collector has also dealt with various other points as well as the case law relied by the appellants. Summing up, the ld. Collector has held that the Notes to Section XVI require that if the parts of a machine are specifically included in a particular heading/sub-heading, then they are to be classified in that heading/sub-heading. In case they are not so specifically included and if they are suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, then they are to be classified with that machine. Therefore, he has held that rotors and stators are not included in any particular heading/sub-heading. Further, the said items manufactured by the appellants are specifically designed for use in the compressors manufactured by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., therefore, they have to be classified in the heading in which the compressors are classified i.e. Heading 84.14 of Central Excise Tariff.
5. We have heard Sr. Advocate Shri Arshad Hidayatullah for the appellant and in the case of M/s. Bhagwat Engg. Enterprises, the party has requested the case to be decided on merits. Shri K.K. Dutta, ld. JDR argued by the Revenue.
6. Ld. Sr. Advocate strenuously argued this case and submitted that the appellants are manufacturing parts for Hermetic Electric Motors and that Hermetic Electric Motors are itself separate goods and therefore, the rotors and stators have to be classified as parts of the electric motors. It is his argument that in the Trade as well as in Technical Understanding, the parts manufactured by the appellants are for Hermetic Electric Motor, although the said motor might have been utilized in a sealed compressor, yet the function of the rotors and stators are that of a electric motor and not of a compressor. The compressor is designed in such a way that the common shaft is used for both the compressors and for the working of these two parts viz. rotors and stators and therefore, merely because they are placed in a sealed compressor and a common shaft is being used, that by itself cannot be a ground to classify the rotors and stators as parts of compressors. In order to buttress his arguments that Hermetic Electric Motors are separate goods. He has relied on an extract from "Principles of Refrigeration" by R. Warren Marsh (page 204) and also extracts from "Understanding and Servicing Fractional Horsepower Motors" and motors for Hermetic Refrigeration Compressors". The ld. Counsel also submitted that the U.S.A. National Electrical Manufacturers' Association has also laid down specifications for the manufacture of Hermetic motors. It is his argument that the rotors and stators manufactured by the appellants satisfy technically and also the Trade Understanding of the definition of Hermetic Electric Motors, which are another type of electric motors and therefore, the classification of the item as parts of compressors is not correct. He relied on the unreported ruling as rendered in the case of Texmo Industries, Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras in Order No. 569/87-B1, dt. 31-8-1987. In this ruling, the Tribunal had rejected the department's plea that rotors and stators should be considered as part of monoblock pump. In the said ruling, a similar situation was in existence, where a common shaft for monoblock pump was operating the rotor and stator. Yet the Tribunal has held that they would be parts of electric motor and not parts of monoblock pump. He submitted that this ratio of the Tribunal's order answers the point pertaining to the common shaft which is used for the motor as well as for the compressor and also the argument of the Collector with regard to the non-existence of a motor. He submitted that this order had been again relied in the case of Saga Windel Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad in Order No. 159/88-Bl. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had confirmed this order in the case of Windel Submersible Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India as reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 421; wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that the rotors and stators are parts of electric motor even if they are housed in a common casing. The ld. Counsel on a query admitted that the controversy before the Tribunal as well as before the Gujarat High Court was with regard to the rotors and stators are to be considered as parts of electric motors falling under Tariff Item 30A or to be classified as power pump under Tariff Item 68 which had been exempted from duty. However, the ld. Sr. Counsel argued that so long as technically and in Trade, Hermetic Electric Motors have been recognized and these rotors and stators are utilised for such a Hermetic Electric Motors, they are required to be classified as parts of electric motor only. On being pointed out to him with regard to the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engineering Works as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 134. The ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the ruling dealt only with the grant of exemption and not with regard to any classification dispute and further the present controversy was not before the Tribunal in that case and hence the ruling is clearly distinguishable. He submitted that Section Note 2 of Section XVI of HSN will arise only if Heading 8503 was not satisfied. Since 8503 is satisfied, the question of relying on Note 2 does not arise. He further argued that the rotors and stators are designed solely and principally for the manufacture of hermetic motors and hence Note 2(a) of Section XVI of CET was clearly applied the facts of the present case. He submitted that the ld. Collector had not considered the existence of hermetic motors and therefore, the order was not correct. He futher submitted that the same has also been stated so in Trade Notice 44 of 1990, dt. 5-2-1990 issued by the Board.
7. Ld. JDR, Shri K.K. Dutta submitted that the Understanding of the Trade as well as Scientific of Hermetic Motors was in the context of use of rotors and stators in a sealed compressor. The sealed compressor cannot function without these two items and these two items have to be considered as parts of compressors and not as a parts of Hermetic Motors. He submitted that there is no hermetic sealed motors available in the market. The rotors and stators are specifically designed for a "Hermetically Sealed Compressors" and that there is no existence of a separate hermetic motor. The understanding both scientific and trade of the term hermetic motor is only in the context of a sealed compressor and therefore, a different understanding cannot be imported, merely because there is a reference to the term 'hermetic motor'. He submitted that the reasoning given by the Collector is that there is no separate hermetic motor for classifying these parts under the category of electric motors is a well sustained order. He submitted that both the unreported judgments whether with regard to the question of dealing rotor and stator as parts of electric motor or electric motor itself. In that context, the Tribunal had held that they are required to be considered as motors and not as parts of electric motors as rotor portion and stator portion are interchangeable with the rotors and stators of electric motors. Therefore, the controversy being confined to question of parts of electric motor or electric motor only the rulings are not of any help to the appellants. He further submitted that both the rulings are rendered under peculiar circumstance, inasmuch as, the matter had come into in existence while in the manufacture of monoblock pumps, which were not dutiable. The ld. JDR submitted that the situation is different in this case as no separate motor had come into existence but rotors-and stators had been used as apart of sealed hermetic compressor. As there was a separate item like a sealed hermetic compressor which was not being denied by the appellants, therefore, the classification adopted by the lower authorities is unsustainable. Ld. JDR however, submitted that in the new tariff, the classification has to be on the basis of Section Note and Chapter Note which was sold in the old tariff.
8. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that Rs. six lakhs has been added in the duty which required to be deducted and the duty had to be reverted even if the case is held against the appellants.
9. E/Appeal No. 4143/92-B1 - The applicants have sought their case to be decided on merits. The appellants are manufacturers of Wound Stators of various sizes and specifications and the department has given show cause notice to them to explain as to why the said item should not be classified as being parts of gas compressors under sub-heading 8414.91, in view of Note 2 of Section XVI. The department has further stated that these parts are suitable for use solely and principally of various types of gas compressors falling under chapter sub-heading No. 8414.10. The appellants have contested this heading and have claimed that they are to be classified under sub-heading 8503.00 as parts suitable for solely or principally with machines of Heading No. 85.01 and 85.02 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985. The sub-heading 8501.00 is for electric motors while sub-heading 8502.00.is for Electric Generating Sets and Rotary Convertors. The Asstt. Collector after due consideration of their case has to come to the conclusion that wound stators for use in Hermetically Sealed Compressors are goods by itself but are not specified in any of the Heading of Chapter 85 and more particularly under sub-heading 8503.00 as contemplated by the assessee. Therefore, he has held that Chapter Note 2(b) of Section XVI would applying the instant case, as they are solely or principally used with particular kind of machine or with number of machines with same heading shall be classified with the machines of that kind only. He has held that the wound stators are part suitable and solely designed so as to become solely or principally to be used in the Hermetically Sealed Compressors. The Hermetically Sealed Compressors are classifiable under sub-heading No. 8414.10 of CET and therefore, the wound stators manufactured by the assessee shall be correctly classified under sub-heading 8414.91 as parts and accessories of the goods covered under sub-heading 8414.10. He has further held that in the manufacture of Hermetically Sealed Compressors, no articles or goods or machinery like electric motor comes into existence during the course of manufacture of HSC. Therefore, the wound stators was not the part of that machinery or goods which never came into existence. He has held that these wound stators manufactured by the assessee have no other application except to be fitted in the HSC only and as such it shall be justified in treating such wound stators as parts of components solely or principally used in the manufacture of HSC which falls under sub-heading 8414.10. In that event of the matter, he has confirmed the duty of Rs. 12080.88.
The appellants have contested this finding before Collector but has not deposited the duty amount. The Collector has dismissed their appeal for non-compliance of stay order. Before us, they have deposited the amount and as this appeal also relates to the common question in the other three appeals, they have been taken up together for disposal as per law. In this appeal also, the appellants have raised the same ground as has been urged by the other appellant.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by ld. Sr. Advocate as well as Shri K.K. Dutta, ld. JDR. The admitted facts in this case are that these rotors and stators are not being used in a separate electric motor which is of a general type. The case of the appellants are that these items are specially designed and manufactured to be used in a Hermetic Sealed Compressors. However, it is their contention that it cannot be considered as parts of HSC as they perform the function of electric motor. However, they do admit that the common prime-mover used for the compressor of these two parts. It is their contention that merely because a common prime-mover is used that by itself and also by the fact that it is placed in a sealed compressor, does not make it a part of a Hermetically Sealed Compressor. They have taken a plea that hermetic motors are electric motors of a different kind and that they are understood as such in the Trade as well as in the technical sense. The Deptt. has, however, come to the conclusion that these are parts of compressors which go into the air-conditioners and as they are specifically designed and used solely and principally in the compressor, therefore, the appropriate heading has to be only under compressors as parts solely and principally used therein. The department has also taken a view that independent electric motor has not come into existence and that they are not treated in trade and in technical sense as electric motors but as "rotors and stators to be used in hermetically sealed compressors", therefore, their classification as parts of electric motor will not be appropriate. In this context, Note 2(b) of Chapter XVI has been applied. The appellants have relied on the literature, certificates and affidavit. In all these affidavits, it is stated that these stators and rotors are parts of prime-mover only. He further stated in the affidavit of Shri S.D. Kumthekar "I understand that these stators and rotors as being manufactured by M/s. Hematic Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karad, can find applications in making electric motors which may be used to drive appliances such as a gas compressor, a monoblock and a submersible pump etc. etc. as a drive unit". The affidavit is identically worded in the case of affidavit furnished by Suresh Govind Kulkarni and Shri R.M. Joglekar. This affidavit had not referred to the use of these stators and rotors in sealed compressors but they have only stated on the basis of the information given by the appellant that these stators and rotors can find applications in making electric motors which may be used to drive appliances such as a compressor a monoblock, a submersible pump etc. etc., as a drive unit. This statement in the affidavit makes it clear that it is not in keeping with the facts of the present case, inasmuch as these rotors and stators are specifically designed to be used in hermetically sealed compressors. Therefore, nothing turns out from the affidavits on the issue as to whether they are parts of Hermetically Sealed Compressors or parts of electric motors. If the stators and rotors manufactured by the appellants, were general in use and the same could have been used in all electric motors then there would not have been much difficulty in accepting these affidavits. As these affidavits have been given at the instance of the applicants, as can be gathered from the affidavit itself, therefore, these affidavits looses the evidential value. The statement in the affidavits are also contrary to the facts in the case, hence they loose their value and cannot relied upon to determine the classification of the items before us. The certificate issued by the Principal Govt. College of Engineering, Karad is also identically worded and there is no mention about the items in question being specifically used solely as a part in a sealed compressor. Therefore, the persons who have given the certificate and the affidavits, have not examined the issue in the light of the controversy but have simply given the certificate and the affidavit in like worded to suit the appellant's need. Therefore, the affidavits and certificate are of not much use for us for determining the controversy. The ld. Sr. Advocate has placed before us the extract from "Understanding and Servicing Fractional Horsepower Motors" by Kennard C. Graham. The page 86 describes "Hermetic Motors":
"These motors are built for hermetically sealed refrigeration units. Stator, rotor and compressor are sealed in an airtight case. The compressor is coupled directly to the rotor shaft, within the case. Under these conditions, it is best to employ an external starting relay, Fig. 6. Its operation is easily understood. During starting action, current flowing in the main winding is much higher than normal. This high current actuates the relay and closes the circuit to the starting winding. When current decreases as the motor picks up-speed the pull of the coil weakens; and the plunger drops down, opening the starting circuit.
One refrigeration unit, which employs a circulating fan, makes novel use of the hermetic starting winding. The small fan motor has a two phase winding on the stator. One of the windings is connected across the supply wires, the other across the starting terminals of the hermetic motor, Fig. 7. Since the small unit need not develop a great deal of power, its windings have considerable resistance, so that it can be stalled without danger of overheating. When the hermetic motor starts, the two phase windings of the fan are connected directly to the supply wires. The currents are not displaced in phase, hence there is no tendency for the rotor to turn. After the starting relay drops out, one of the windings is connected to the supply wires, the other across the terminals of the starting winding. As the switch opens, the fan motor starts up and continues to run as long as the main unit is in operation.
The reason that it starts may be learned from Fig. 8. Note that flux from the rotor sweeps across both starting and running windings. The voltage generated in the running winding is a counter voltage directly opposing the supply. The voltage generated in the starting winding is 90° out of phase with the counter voltage in the running winding because the two windings are 90 electrical degrees apart. Ordinarily, voltage generated in the starting winding serves no purpose. Here, it is used to supply one of the two fan windings. Because voltage in the starting winding is 90° out of phase with that in the supply wires, two-phase current is supplied to the small motor. A two-phase motor is self starting, so that the fan motor operates without a centrifugal device; thus a possible source of trouble is eliminated".
The ld. Sr. Counsel has also relied on the literature an extract of Principles of Refrigeration by R. Warren Marsh and C. Thomas Olivo. Pages 204, 205 & 206 is extracted without the figures given therein :
"HERMETIC COMPRESSORS Extreme accuracy of finish and close dimensional tolerances are essential in the design and construction of hermetic compressors. Hermetic compressors are very quite and efficient. There are two types that are in popular use : the reciprocating compressor and the rotary compressor.
Hermetic Reciprocating Compressors Hermetic and open-type compressors are similar. The main difference is that the electric motor of the hermetic compressor is encased in the crank case or within a sealed housing containing the compressor. With such a design, the compressor is driven directly by the motor, revolves at motor speed, and requires no shaft seal. Single cylinder models are available for small units while two-cylinder ones are used for larger units.
The three basic designs for hermetic compressors are illustrated. The compressor body itself serves as the casing. The crankcase is extended to hold the motor. Since this type of unit is bolted together and may easily be taken apart and reassembled, it is known as a "serviceable" hermetic unit.
The compressor and motor are enclosed in a steel casing (dome or hat). The stationary field (stator) of the motor may be pressed into half the dome. The compressor is secured on this stator. This unit is usually mounted on springs or rubber mounts which dampen or absorb vibration.
The section shows a motor and compressor assembly mounted on springs inside the dome or casing. Such a casing is usually made of two pieces that are automatically welded together at the joint.
As can be imagined, one major problem with hermetic units is the cooling of the electric motor. In one design the stator is pressed into the dome to help cool the motor. This provides easy heat transfer from the windings to the case.
A second design provides a way of passing the returning gas around the motor windings before the gas is compressed in the compressor. While the cool gas removes a great deal of heat, this design has the disadvantage of reducing compressor efficiency because it warms the returning gas.
Sound deadening devices are necessary on the smaller hermetic units for both the intake and exhaust openings. A device known as a muffler eliminates the gasping sound of the intake stroke and the puff noises of the exhaust gases to increase in volume. This is accomplished through the use of baffle plates mounted in small cylinders in the muffler. Any increase in volume produces a decrease in velocity, thus reducing the pumping noises. The drawing shows a cylinder head and muffler system. The outer holes in the head are the intake ports. The exhaust holes are located in the inner half ring".
The ld. Counsel has also relied on United States Standards on Hermetic Motors. The above literature makes it very clear that the electric motor is with reference to the Hermetic Compressors only. A compressor cannot function without a rotor and stator. The compressor is designed in such a way that it has to have a stator and rotor and a common prime mover to run the compressor. The literature has made it very clear that the existence of the rotor and stator is specifically designed to function within a sealed compressor only. Although the rotor and stator may function as a electric motor by generating power, but the fact remains that a compressor cannot function without these two items. The design of the Hermetic Sealed Compressors makes it clear that these rotors and stators are to be placed within the compressor as their sole and principal part. Had the rotor and stator gone into a separate identifiable electric motor with a independent shaft to form an independent unit to the compressor then a conclusion could have been drawn that these stators and rotors are for a independent hermetic electric motor. The drawing and design of Hermetic Sealed Compressor is specific and these two items have become identifiable and specific parts of hermetic sealed compressors, therefore their classification as parts to be solely and principally used alongwith hermetic sealed compressor has to be accepted. The Revenue is correct in applying Note 2(b) of Section XVI of the CET '85 in the present case. The ld. Counsel has relied on two unreported judgments and the one which has been approved by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Windel Submersible Pvt. Ltd. In this case, the question was with regard to the classification of parts of electric motor within Tariff Item 30D or electric motors falling under Tariff Item 30A. The tariff has completely changed with introduction of Chapter Notes and Section Notes. The tariff change has made all the difference for the purpose of classification. The dispute being of a different nature, the rulings cited before us are clearly distinguishable. The present controversy is with regard to parts of hermetically sealed compressors or as parts of electric motor which was not in existence in the cited cases. The appellants have clearly admitted that these rotors and stators are solely and principally designed to be used in the hermetic sealed compressors and literature also makes it very clear that in a sealed compressor these two items have become their sole and principal parts. In view of the Note 2(b) of Section XVI, the classification under the heading adopted by the department is unassailable.
11. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engg. Works as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 134, it has been held that stampings and laminations used in rotors or stators which in turn is used as component parts of power driven pumps should be granted the benefit of notification No. 64/86 dated 10-2-1986. The notification in this case granted benefit to parts of power driven pumps primary designed for handling water. The rotors and stators were used in power driven pumps and the stampings and laminations which were used in these rotors and stators were considered as parts of power driven pump and not as parts of electric motors and therefore, the ratio of this case cannot be lost sight of. Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the Tribunal had not examined the unreported citation brought to their notice. However on our examination, we find that the issue was different in the unreported judgments than the one before us. The Tribunal has also noted in Mahendra Engg. Works, the unreported judgment namely Saga Windel Engineers (P) Ltd. in Order No. 159/88-B1, dated 5-4-1988 cited before us. Therefore, it follows that the Tribunal had taken notice of the unreported judgment and had held that parts of parts could go into the main item i.e. power driven pumps and thus granted the benefit of the exemption. In the present case the rotors and stators having been specifically designed and solely and principally used as parts of hermetically sealed compressors, the reasoning adopted by the Department requires to be confirmed.
12. As regards the confirmation of duty, the appellants have stated that they have not properly calculated the same and therefore, it requires to be reconsidered. We have considered the plea and the ld. SDR has not opposed their prayer. Therefore, we direct the authorities to grant hearing to the appellants on the duty calculation and arrive at the correct duty to be confirmed in the present case. The appeals are, thus disposed of in the above terms.