Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Sharp Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(110)ELT816(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the monobloc pumps manufactured by the appellants can be considered as electric motors for the purpose of classifying the same under the Heading of 85.01 of the new Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants have utilised rotors and stators for the manufacture of monobloc pumps. The appellants were issued with show cause notice on the ground that as they were utilising rotors and stators and as electric motors has come into existence and hence, the said monobloc pump is required to be classified under Heading 85.01 and on that ground, demands were confirmed.
2. The learned Consultant submits that the issue is no longer res integra and the Tribunal has already held that electric motor does not come into existence in the course of manufacture of monobloc pump sets and therefore, rotors and stators used in the manufacture of monobloc power driven pumps would be classifiable under Heading 85.03 and not under 85.01. In this regard, he relies on the Tribunal's judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Chitra Indus., as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 571 (T), which takes into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saga Windel Engineers. He also points out that the Board has issued a Circular No. 147/3/80, dated 4-2-1981, holding that no electric motor comes into existence on the manufacture of monobloc pump. He submits that this circular has also been applied for the classification in the new Tariff. He points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) in number of cases has upheld the contention and against such revenue appeal, the Tribunal held that the Circular is applicable, even to new Tariff and dismissed the revenue appeals, as can be seen from the judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. EL. P. EM Industries as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 604 (T). He further submits that presently all clearances are being done under Heading 85.03, in terms of the judgment of Tribunal, therefore, he submits that the issue being covered the appeal could be allowed.
3. The learned D.R. reiterates the departmental contention.
4. We have carefully perused the judgments placed before us and we notice from the Tribunal's judgment that the classification of monobloc pumps have been held to be only under Heading 85.03 and not under Heading 85.01. It is also held that no electric motor comes into existence on the manufacture of monobloc pumps.
5. In view of the judgments cited, the impugned order is set aside, with consequential relief.