Broad tariff wording covers geared electric motors, while duty demand was limited from the date departmental practice changed.

The Tribunal held that it retained jurisdiction to decide a remanded revision matter under Section 35P after the High Court set aside the earlier order, as the remand left the dispute pending within the appellate scheme. On classification, Motorised Geared Units and Motorised Speedall Units were treated as geared electric motors and held to fall within Tariff Item 30, whose expression "electric motors, all sorts" was construed broadly; the later Explanation III did not alter the pre-1-3-1982 position. The duty demand was, however, restricted prospectively from the date of the relevant trade notice because departmental practice had continued until that change.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the remanded revision matter under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether Motorised Geared Units and Motorised Speedall Units were covered by Tariff Item 30 of the Central Excise Tariff before 1-3-1982 and whether the demand of duty should be restricted to a later date.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the remanded revision matter under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The matter had been remanded by the High Court after setting aside the earlier order in revision. On that footing, the revision application was treated as pending again before the appropriate appellate forum. The remand direction did not exclude Tribunal jurisdiction, and the remanded dispute fell within the Tribunal's competence under the governing statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Assessee and the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether Motorised Geared Units and Motorised Speedall Units were covered by Tariff Item 30 of the Central Excise Tariff before 1-3-1982 and whether the demand of duty should be restricted to a later date.

Analysis: Tariff Item 30 used the wide expression "electric motors, all sorts", and the products manufactured by the appellants were found to be geared electric motors in commercial substance. The later insertion of Explanation III was not treated as decisive for the pre-1-3-1982 position. The earlier exemption for parts of electric motors did not prevent inclusion of the geared motor value in the assessable value of the motor. At the same time, the longstanding departmental practice was taken into account, and duty demand was restricted from the date when the Collectorate trade notice altered that practice.

Conclusion: The issue was decided substantially in favour of the Revenue on classification, but in favour of the Assessee on the period of demand, which was limited to 4-5-1976 onwards.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the classification issue, but the demand was curtailed to the date of the relevant trade notice, resulting in only partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff entry using the expression "all sorts" is wide enough to include a commercially known geared motor, and where departmental practice is shown to have continued until a trade notice, duty demand may be limited from the date of that notice.

---