TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods) manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 29-A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff or under T.I. No. 68 ibid and whether any part of the refund claimed by the Respondents JS time-barred. 2. The respondents Company is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of goods described above since 1962. The goods were classified by the jurisidictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise under T.I. No. 29A(3) of the C.E.T. Later the respondents on the basis of some Court judgment applied for refund claiming that the goods were not classifiable under Item 29A(3) but under Item 68. The refunds claimed numbering seven related to period 1-7-1977 to 20-12-1980 and totalled in all to ₹ 22,32,785.84 The Assistant Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Machinery are parts of Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Machinery falling under T.I. No. 29A(3) of the First Schedule of the Act. For applicability of this sub-item, it is not necessary that these parts should be parts of ready assembled units ordinarily sold or offered for sale. 5. At the hearing of the appeal, Sh. Abdul Khader, Senior Advocate for the appellants took us through Craies on Statute Law and argued that the words which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units used in sub-items (1) and (2) of Item No. 29A could not be used to control the plain and simple meaning of sub-item (3) parts of Refrigerating and Air-conditioning appliances and machinery all sorts . As for Allahabad High Court s judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and another, v. Union of India and others (Supra), the High Court of Gujarat disagreed with the Allahabad High Court s decision in Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise - 1980 E.L.T. 600 (Allahabad) on which the Collector of Central Excise relied for passing the order under challenge. The Gujarat High Court inter alia held that the words manufactured for sale could not be read in entry No. 3 by drawing upon the theory of taking colour which had no application in the case. They observed that injecting these words would be re-writing this Section and they would be legislating which they could not do. They held that there was no warrant for drawing the inference that it related to goods which were man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
