9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electric motors. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government issued Notification No. 80/80-C.E. dated 19th June, 1980, which, as it stood during the relevant period, exempted from duty excisable goods falling under certain Item Numbers of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as specified in the Table annexed to the Notification and of the particular description set forth in that Table. But paragraph 2 of the Notification declared : "Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to a manufacturer, - (i) if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods by him or on h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981. 4. For the financial year 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1981 the appellant had disclosed a clearance value of Rs. 13,43,443.55 on account of electric motors for home consumption and a clearance value of Rs. 6,51,138.50 on account of electric motors "for captive consumption" in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. It was contended by the appellant that the electric motors used for making monoblock pumps could not be taken into consideration when calculating the clearances eligible under the Notification. According to the appellant the captive consumption did not amount to clearance. The claim was disputed by the Department, which relied on Explanation V to the aforesaid Notification dated 19 June 1980. The explanation declared: "Explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceeded the limit stipulated by Notification No. 80/80-C.E. dated 19 June 1980, and was, therefore, disentitled to the concession. 5. It is contended before us that the Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting the sub mission of the appellant that the goods manufactured by the appellant did not entitle it to the benefit of Explanation 5 of the Notification. It is urged that the goods in question were rotors and stators, that they were integral components of monoblock motors and could not be considered as components of general purpose Motors and therefore fell within the same Tariff Item as monoblock pumps. The question has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. It is a question of fact and we do not propose to entertain it at this stage. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us is a claim based on the legal effect of a provision of law and, therefore, this contention must be rejected. 9. Finally it is pointed out by counsel for the appellant that no recovery has been made by the appellant from its constituents and therefore, it is said, the demand should be set aside. Reference is made to Collector of Customs and Central Excise and Another v. Oriental Timber Industries 1985 (20) ELT 202 (S.C.). We have perused the facts of that case and we find that the order made by the court there, so far as this aspect is concerned, was made on a concession of counsel for the Union of India and on the footing that the Union of India was not concerned with the collection of additional duty for earlier years but was merely c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
