Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Appellate Tribunal observed that in terms of the Explanation the clearances of inputs could not be taken into account for calculating the aggregate value of clearances only when the inputs and finished products fall under the same item of the First Schedule to the Act. It pointed out that while electric motors were mentioned under Tariff Item 30, power driven pumps were specified under Tarrif Item 30- A. It said that consequently the electric motors captively consumed as inputs in the manufacture of power driven pumps could not be excluded when determining the appellant's clearances. The appellant urged that the appellant had mistakenly stated that electric motors had been used for monoblock pumps whereas only rotors and stators which were integral components of monoblock pumps had been used, and that, therefore, the same Tariff Item was attracted, thus entitling the appellant to the concession. The submission was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, it found that the appellant had exceeded the limit stipulated PG NO 882 by Notification No. 80/80-C.E. dated 19 June, 1980, and was, therefore, disentitled to the concession. It is contended before us that the Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting the submission of the appellant that the goods manufactured by the appellant did not entitle it to the benefit of Explanation V of the Notification. lt is urged that the goods in question were rotors and stators, that they were integral components of monoblock motors and could not be considered as components of general purpose Motors and therefore fell within the same Tariff Item as monoblock pumps. The question has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. It is a question of fact and we do not propose to entertain it at this stage.