9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Ld. Advocate submits that the appellants/applicants are manufacturers, inter alia, of water coolers. For the purpose of water coolers, they also manufacture some parts of water coolers such as condencer coil. They paid the duty on the condencer coil used captively in the manufacture of exempted water coolers. It has been alleged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d judgment of the said Tribunal. On the other hand, there are some judgments which directly uphold the case of the appellants. There are : (i) 1996 (81) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal), Union Air-conditioning v. C.C.E. (ii) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 485 (Tribunal), Moosa Haji Patrawala v. CCE. These judgments clearly hold that water coolers casing is not known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri J.M. Kenedy, ld. JDR. 4. We find that the issue is no more res integra and the same stands decided by the Tribunal's decisions referred by the ld. Advocate and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ratio of all these decisions is that no cabinet come into existence separately before the manufacture of water coolers. As such by following the ratio of the earlier judgments, we set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
