TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-Appeal No. B-158/AUR/-62/89, dated 5-4-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the demand of duty of excise on nozzles, nozzle holder and nozzle holders with couplings (Injection). (ii) Appeal No.E/5550/91-B filed by Collector Central Excise, Aurangabad against order-in-Appeal No. KVV-131/91/A bad dated 4-3-1991 passed by Collector (Appeals) Bombay, holding that benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 would be available to nozzle and nozzle holders which are used in the manufacture of I.C. Engines used for non vehicular purpose.G 2. Shri Rohan Shah, Learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. MICO-manufacture inter alia, Nozzles, Nozzle holders and components for the same; that they also assemble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Advocate, further, mentioned that the appellate Tribunal in their own case, Motor Industries Co. Ltd v. CCE, Aurangabad 1995 (75) E.L.T. 65 (T), held that parts of Nozzles and Nozzle holders were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/85 being parts of the diesel operated I.C. Engines; that following this decision, the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. E/585/98-B1, dated 13-4-1998 in their own case, has extended the benefit of Notification No. 217/85 to the parts of Nozzle and Nozzle holders. The Learned Advocate submitted that Department wants to levy duty on Nozzle and Nozzle holder separately whereas it is one product as held by the Tribunal in their own matter as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 290; that it was obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICO that they were not having any other factory at any other place for the manufacture of I.C. Engines. In view of this factual position, the Collector (Appeals) was not justified under the impugned Order dated 4-3-1991 in extending the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 on the ground that the assessee cleared the nozzle and nozzle holders to their factory for use in the manufacture of I.C. Engines. To this extent the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. 6. The Collector (Appeals) also held, in the said impugned Order, that notification No. 75/86 is not applicable to those nozzle and nozzle holders which are used in the manufacture of I.C. Engines used for non-vehicular operation. He has also denied the exemption under Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.C. 582 that a proviso is intended to limit the enacted provision so as to except something which would have otherwise been within it or in some measure to modify the enacting clause. In view of this we agree with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that the assessee's submission that for non vehicular operation also, they should get the benefit of duty exemption for nozzles and nozzle holder can not be accepted. Accordingly there is no merit in cross objection which is rejected. In cross objection, the assessee Company has not challenged the findings of the Collector (Appeals) regarding denial of Notification No. 217/85 to nozzles and nozzle holders. Accordingly the Appeal No.E/5550/91-B filed by revenue is allowed and cross objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than inter alia, nozzles and nozzle holders. There is nothing to suggest that nozzles and nozzle holders mentioned in the notification refers to injectors and not to nozzles and nozzle holders separately. It has been mentioned by the Assessee Company in their Memorandum of Appeals that they "manufacture Nozzles, Nozzle holders and components for the same. The Appellants also assemble together Nozzles and Nozzle Holders. Nozzles and Nozzle Holders so assembled together are known as Injectors . It is thus apparent from their submissions itself that Nozzles and Nozzle Holders mentioned in the Notification are two different items and not as one item. The issue involved in CCE v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., 1989 (43) E.L.T. 290 was whether N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om nozzles and nozzle holders which were specified as items not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/85. It is seen from this decision that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 217/85 for the components and parts used in nozzle and nozzle holders by their supplementary C.L. No. 2/89 dated 20-8-1989 and the Collector had denied the exemption to parts which go into the manufacture of nozzle and nozzle holders. It was contended by M/s. MICO in that case that they were not claiming the benefit for nozzle and nozzle holders but were claiming the benefit for its component parts, as nozzle and nozzle holders were already exempt under Notification Nos. 112/89 and 216/87. They have not brought any material on record to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
