Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1985 (6) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-appeal No. 513/CO/1977 dated 23-9-1977 passed by the appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, which on transfer to this Tribunal was treated as an appeal before this Tribunal and is now being disposed of accordingly. 2.  The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of some information, the Central Excise Officers of Calcutta VII Division visited the factory of M/s. B.K. Engineering & Company (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) on 3-6-1974 and noticed that the appellants were manufacturing "24 Volts D.C. Armature" without obtaining L-4 licence from the Central Excise Department. According to the Officers those goods were liable to Central Excise duty under Item 30(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Calcutta was also rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The appellants contended that the goods manufactured by them were not complete armatures, but were armature windings and that those were not complete armatures as the ball bearings, retaining plates. Fibre Washers, fixing Screws, locking nuts etc. were not supplied to the buyers alongwith those armature windings which were further processed by turning the commutator etc. elsewhere by M/s. Advanced Apparatus and M/s. Jayshree Supply Agency to whom the goods were sold by the appellants. They argued that as the process of manufacture was not completed by them and they removed the goods in an unfinished condition, Central Excise duty was not payable by them, but it was to be pai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o whom the goods were supplied by them. He said that without completing these processes, the armature winding manufactured by them could not be put to use in D.C. Motors. The learned Advocate further argued that an armature of D.C. Motor becomes complete after the processes of laminations, core assembly, winding, grinding and varnishing are done. He submitted a copy of Supplement to the Manual of Departmental Instructions on Excisable Manufactured Products-Electric Fans, published by the Central Board of Revenue (which is marked for departmental use only) and has drawn our attention to pages 27, 28 and 29 thereof in support of his arguments. He concluded by saying that as the appellants did not manufacture and remove complete and finished a....