1986 (12) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kumaran, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri H.L. Verma, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.R. Syiem, Member (T)]. -  In his order No. V(68) 3/CL/112/81, dated 21-7-1981, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, says that the only dispute was that the assessees wanted to claim exemption on the tipping-gear assembly as per notification No. 118/75-C.E. He decided that the cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ;The learned Counsel for M/s. TELCO argued that the equipments were used by them in their manufacture of tipper trucks, but they are not machineries. They are gear assemblies fitted to trucks as equipments to lift/tip/lower the body that holds material load; they are not the kind of machinery disqualified by the second proviso to Notification 118/75-C.E. 4. The learned SDR, Mr. Verma said th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in fact, proves that the gear assembly was used in the factory in which it is manufactured, conditio sine quo non for Notification 118/75-C.E. exemption. 7. The Appellate Collector appears to see these gear assemblies as complete producing machineries. They are not. They neither take part in production nor in producing goods; they form essential components of goods, tipper trucks, manufactu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X