Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs Cce, Pune on 22 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT298(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., the matter relates to the refund claim of Rs.9,765.50 filed by the appellants on the ground that the Notification No.239/86 CE dated 3.4.86 was covered by the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The matter relates to the exemption of parts of motor vehicles when such parts were used as original equipment parts in the manufacture of tractors. The adjudicating authority had taken a view that this Notification No.239/86 CE dated 3.4.86 was not covered by the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. This order was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. In the written submissions, they have submitted that the goods i.e. Valve Blocks were earlier classifiable under Item No.68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were eligible for exemption when used in the manufacture of other excisable goods and they had referred to Notification No.167/79 CE dated 19.4.79 as amended by Notification No.187/79 CE. When the new Central Excise Tariff was brought in force, this Notification No.167/79 CE dated 19.4.79 was rescinded. However, in its place Notification No.239/86 CE dated 3.4.86 was issued and it was given retrospective effect from 1.3.86. Thus, the position that was prevailing prior to introduction of the new Tariff was restored from 1.3.86 itself.
3. Before the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, the appellants have reiterated this position but he did not agree with the contentions of the appellants and took a view that Notification No.167/79 CE dated 19.4.79 and Notification No.239/86 CE were not similar.
4. We have heard Shri Prabhat Kumar, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.
5. It has been noted in the order-in-original that the goods in question were used in further manufacture of excisable goods and the goods so manufactured had been used as original equipments. We find that even before the introduction of the new Tariff both the situations i.e. captive consumption of parts in the manufacture of other parts and use of motor vehicle parts as original equipment parts were covered by one or the other exemption notifications. Thus, this situation has remained even under the new Tariff.
6. We have also gone through the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 and the objects and reasons for the same as appearing at page B-10 of 1986 (25) ELT.
7. Taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submissions of the appellants. The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Refund claim will however be subject to the law of unjust enrichment as per the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Vs. Union of India - 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). With these observations, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
Order dictated & pronounced in the Open Court on 22.2.2001.