Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner has moved this application under Section 35(G)(3) because his application of 31(G)(1) for referring the following question, stated to be a question of law to this court for its opinion has been rejected by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT).

"Whether the parts of Power Driven Pumps falling under Heading No. 84.13 were entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 155/86, Dt. 1-3-86 read with Note 2(a) of Section XVI of Chapter 84 of CET-1986-87."

5. The controversy which has been decided by the Tribunal and has been sought to be raised in the question suggested by the assessee surrounds the controversy at what rates the parts of power driven pumps are subjected to Excise Duty. The title of Chapter 84 in Section 16 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 reads as under :

"MACHINERY AND MECHANICAL APPLIANCES; ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT; PARTS THEREOF; SOUND RECORDERS AND REPRODUCERS, TELEVISION IMAGES AND SOUND RECORDERS AND REPRODUCERS, AND PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF SUCH ARTICLE."

1. 84.13

(i) Power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water, namely :-

Nil

(a) Centrifugal pumps (horizontal or vertical pumps);

(b) Deep tube-well turbine pumps;

(c) Submersible pumps;

(d) Axial flow and mixed flow vertical pumps-

(ii) Other power driven pumps.

10% ad valorem

7. The petitioner claimed that in view of the Clause (2) of the Column (3) he is liable to pay excise duty at the rate of 10% only and Excise Duty payable over above the said rate under the Tariff Act is exempted under the Notification, This question obviously is related to determination of rate of Excise Duty to which accessories and parts of pump are to be subjected to. The controversy is limited to the issue whether in the absence of any provision one way or the other whether entries in the notification referred to the parts and accessories of such goods as envisaged in the heading of Section 16 of Chapter 84 or for want of express provision to that effect the benefit of exemption of paying Excise Duty at the reduced rate is not extended in the case of manufacturing of parts and accessories of such goods. Undoubtedly such question is a question of law but since it relates to determination of rate of Excise Duty payable thereon, the conclusion is irresistible that the reference under Section 35G is not envisaged under the Act of 1944. Such an order is directly challenged to Supreme Court under Section 35L.