1993 (12) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption for Manufacturing Parts in Electrical Appliances Upheld by Tribunal

UNIVERSAL ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., NEW DELHI

The Tribunal held that parts used within the factory for manufacturing electric toasters and room heaters, exempt under Notification 175/86, should not be ... SSI exemption - Value of parts Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 175/86 for parts of electric toasters and room heaters.2. Inclusion of value of clearances for rotors and stators in the aggregate value of clearances for small scale exemption.Summary:Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification 175/86 for parts of electric toasters and room heaters.The appellants, Universal Electrical Industries, manufactured electric toasters and room heaters, which were exempt from duty under Notifications 160/86 and 124/88. They also manufactured parts for these items, which were captively consumed. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty on these parts under Notification 217/86, arguing that parts are not eligible for exemption when the final products are cleared without duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal held that the value of clearances of parts used within the factory should not be included in the aggregate value of clearances under Notification 175/86, as per Explanation III. Therefore, the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.Issue 2: Inclusion of value of clearances for rotors and stators in the aggregate value of clearances for small scale exemption.The appellants, Durable Electricals (P) Ltd., did not include the value of clearances of rotors and stators used in the manufacture of centrifugal P.D. pumps, exempt under Notification 155/86, in the aggregate value of clearances for small scale exemption under Notification 175/86. The Department issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty. The Tribunal held that Explanation III to Notification 175/86 stipulates that the value of clearances of inputs used within the factory for further manufacture of specified goods should not be included in the aggregate value of clearances. Therefore, the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.Separate Judgment by Judge:[Contra per: P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - The learned Member disagreed with the majority view, stating that Explanation III to Notification 175/86 would apply only when the final specified goods are cleared under the same notification. Since the final products in these cases were cleared under different notifications, the benefit of Explanation III was not applicable.Final Order:In view of the majority opinion, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief due to the appellants.