TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 10-A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944 to show cause for recovery of difference of duty short-levied for the aforesaid period, in response to which, the petitioner filed its objection before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Division, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Collector) opposing the same. On 26-10-1972, the Assistant Collector by his order of that date (Exhibit-B) over-ruled the objections of the petitioner and confirmed the show cause notice and directed the petitioner to pay the difference of duty of Rs. 60,506.25 for the aforesaid period which has been paid by it under protest. 4. Against the said order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who by his order dated 23-7-1975 (Exhibit-C) dismissed the same. Against the said orders of the Appellate Collector and the Assistant Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before Government of India which by its order dated 29-10-1977 (Exhibit-D) dismissed the same. In writ petition No. 505 of 1979, the petitioner has challenged the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the printed catalogue of the party in respect of their monobloc pump set that if the pump portion fitted on to the shaft is removed that is driving portion. However, if this driving portion as such has to be individually categorised, it definitely cannot be called as an electric motor, known in the market as such. It no doubt serves the function of an electric motor but even then it is not identical to an electric motor. On the other hand, there is absolutely no doubt that the stator and the rotor are distinctly identifiable components of this driving portion which came into being separately and which are mounted in the casing. It has also been well-settled that in the manufacture of monobloc pump sets the motor portion as such does not come into being but rotor and stator definitely come into existence. Therefore, duty has to be paid on the rotor and stator which come into existence in the manufacture of monobloc pump sets. The party's contention that no separate driving portion as such come into existence but what is manufactured is only fully integrated pump is not correct. Definitely the rotor and stator as such come into existence and duty is chargeable on the same in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners accepts the same and has no grievance. But, its grievance against this order is limited only to the finding on the `rotors' and `stators' and their chargeability to duty under the Act. 7. On the very finding recorded by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 28-5-1983, the petitioner contends that the findings recorded for the period from 18-4-1972 to 31-7-1972, that is the subject of challenge in W.P. No. 505 of 1979, cannot be upheld by this Court and its claim thereto had to be allowed in its entirety. 8. In their common return, the respondents do not rightly dispute the order made by the Assistant Collector on 28-5-1983 and the correctness of his findings in that order. But, still, they have sought to support the orders made for the earlier period as also the said order made by the Assistant Collector in its entirety. 9. Sri K.P. Jagadeeshan, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that on the very finding recorded by the Assistant Collector on 28-5-1983 to the extent that is not challenged by his client as also the Revenue, his client was entitled to succeed in W.P. No. 505 of 1979 in its entirety without remitting the matter on any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 14. With this, I now proceed to examine the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 13620 of 1983. 15. Sri Jagadeeshan next contends that the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector on 'rotors' and 'stators' as separate components and are parts of electric motors dutiable to separate duty was inconsistent with his earlier finding on electric motors and was illegal. 16. Sri Bhat in supporting the order of the Assistant Collector to the extent that is also challenged contends that the same should have been agitated only in statutory appeals under the Act. 17. Sri Jagadeeshan does not dispute that the (sic) of the Assistant Collector on 28-5-1983 to the extent it decided against the petitioner was appealable. But, he contends that if the petitioner had filed appeals, they would have met the same fate as for the earlier period, for which reason, it did not avail rightly that remedy and that notwithstanding the same, this is fit case in which this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 18. For the earlier period, the authorities had cursorily dealt with the matter and had decided against the petitioner. In that situation, it is legit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
