Merger of orders and tariff classification determine revisional power and excise exemption for separately manufactured machinery components.

An original excise order merges into the appellate order once an appeal is decided, so revisional jurisdiction cannot later be exercised against the original order on the same subject-matter. Separate manufactured components do not become a single complete machine merely because they are connected and used together; the power pack and hydraulic rivetting gun retained separate identity. On classification, the rivetting gun was treated as falling under Item 68 rather than Item 51A(ii), and that classification meant the exemption under Notification No. 118/75-Central Excise was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector could invoke revisional jurisdiction after the Assistant Collector's order had merged in the Appellate Collector's order; (ii) Whether the power pack, pipeline and hydraulic rivetting gun constituted a single complete machinery and whether the rivetting guns were classifiable under Item No. 51A(ii) or Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, with consequential effect on exemption under Notification No. 118/75-Central Excise dated 30.4.1975.

Issue (i): Whether the Collector could invoke revisional jurisdiction after the Assistant Collector's order had merged in the Appellate Collector's order.

Analysis: Once the original order is carried in appeal and the appellate authority passes an order, the original order merges in the appellate order. On that footing, the revisional authority cannot later set aside the original order on the same subject-matter, because the operative order is that of the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The revisional order was without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the power pack, pipeline and hydraulic rivetting gun constituted a single complete machinery and whether the rivetting guns were classifiable under Item No. 51A(ii) or Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, with consequential effect on exemption under Notification No. 118/75-Central Excise dated 30.4.1975.

Analysis: The power pack and the rivetting gun were separately manufactured and retained separate identity. Mere connection by a pipeline did not create a new composite machine. The rivetting gun itself did not contain a self-contained motor, but it was not shown to fall under Item No. 51A(ii); it was treated as falling under Item No. 68. Since it was held to be a machine falling under Item No. 68, the exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was unavailable.

Conclusion: The equipment could not be treated as one complete machine, but the rivetting guns were classifiable under Item No. 68 and not entitled to exemption; this part was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge succeeded, but the classification issue was decided against the appellant, resulting in partial relief only.

Ratio Decidendi: An original excise order merges with the appellate order once appealed, and separate manufactured components do not become one excisable machine merely because they are connected and operate together; exemption depends on the correct tariff classification and the terms of the notification.

---