TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms duty on Rotors and Stators for pumps, rejecting separate electric motor classification.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD Versus SAGA WINDEL ENGINEERS</h3> COLLECTOR OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD Versus SAGA WINDEL ENGINEERS - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 1158 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Classification of wound Rotors and Stators for mono block pump, refund claim on excise duty, existence of electric motors in the manufacturing process.Analysis:1. The appeal pertains to the classification of wound Rotors and Stators fixed with the shaft of the pump portion to make the mono block pump. The respondent, a manufacturing company, paid excise duty on the Rotors and Stators. Upon fixing these components with the shaft to create the mono block pump, the duty was charged again. The company filed a refund claim, arguing that no excise duty was payable at the stage of manufacturing the mono block pump as it constituted the pump and not the motor. The Asstt. Collector accepted this contention and sanctioned the refund, which was challenged by the Revenue before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The Asstt. Collector had observed that the electric motor did not come into existence in an identifiable and separable manner from the mono block pump in the case of the respondent. The company sought exemption under a specific notification, which was denied, leading to the payment of duty on rotors and stators. The respondent clarified that during the manufacturing process of mono block pumps, the electric motor did not come into existence separately. The stators and rotors were integral parts of the mono block pump, and the electric motor was not identifiable or separable.3. The issue revolved around the old Central Excise Tariff, where electric motors and their parts, including rotors and stators, were separately classifiable. The respondents had paid duty on these parts and argued that the electric motor did not come into existence during the manufacturing of mono block pumps. Both the Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals) concurred that the electric motor was not identifiable during the manufacturing process.4. The Ministry had provided clarification on this matter, which was referenced by the Collector (Appeals) in his order. Additionally, the Gujarat High Court's decision in a related case was cited, where it was acknowledged that rotors and stators suitable for use with electric motors were liable for duty under a specific heading.5. The Supreme Court's decision in a similar case emphasized that the integral components of mono block pumps, such as rotors and stators, were used, and the plea that electric motors were mistakenly stated was not entertained. In the present case, both lower authorities concluded that duty was payable on stators and rotors under a specific tariff item, and the electric motor did not exist independently in an identifiable manner.6. After considering all relevant aspects, the Tribunal found no error in the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment reaffirmed that the electric motor did not come into existence separately during the manufacturing process, aligning with the lower authorities' findings.
TaxTMI 