TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts judgement in October 1985 has remanded the matter, according to the learned SDR, specifically to the Govt. of India for dealing with it in accordance with law. Accordingly, he has submitted that the matter has to be dealt with by the Government of India on the specific direction of the Karnataka High Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, submits on this point that the last para of the Karnataka High Court makes the point clear beyond all doubt wherein it has been ordered that "prayer regarding refund to the petitioner of all sums collected is difference of duty in pursuance to the orders passed by the Asstt. Collector will be subject to the final decision to. be rendered by the appropriate authority/Tribunal under the amended provisions". He also submits that by virtue of the fact of remand of the matter by the High Court of Karnataka on setting aside of the Government of India's order dated 19-7-1979, the revision application can be said to be again pending before the Government of India as if the said order-in-revision by the Government did not exist. Accordingly, in terms of Section 35P of the Act, the matter is now required to be dealt with -by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness. These Gear Units, according to him, are of general utility and can be fitted not only with electric motors but also with other prime movers such as engines. He also draws attention to the special features of these Motorised Gear Units at page 61 of the paper book wherein it has been stated that "functionally electric motors and gear boxes are totally different units. In Kirloskar motorised gear units, for the sake of reducing size and weight, the two totally different equipments (i.e. the electric motor and the gear box) are compactly coupled and assembled in the final stage in a special way to give a sort of composite-looking finish. These composite looking units are compact and light when compared to electric motors externally coupled to bulky gear boxes in the old conservative method." 6. In view of the foregoing facts, the learned counsel submits that the electric motor has come into existence at an earlier date separately and it is dutiable under Tariff Item at that stage before the gear unit is attached to the electric motor. Supreme Court has clearly held in Collector of Central Excise v. Oriental Timber Industries [1985 (20) E.L.T. 202] that duty is payable at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ratio of Supreme Court's judgment [1985 (2) E.L.T. 202] cited by the appellants' counsel is not applicable to the instant case, since the wording of Tariff Item 16B as was considered in that judgment is different from the wording of the Tariff Item 30 under consideration here. The latter Tariff Item covers electric motors of all sorts and geared electric motors being a variety of electric motor would be covered by this Tariff Item. He supports his foregoing pleas by Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Company Ltd. (Calico Mills 1985 (21) E.L.T. 633 (S.C.) = (1985 ECR 1529 SC). He has also relied upon CEGAT's judgment the case of M/s Mahendra Engg. & Chemical Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune 1984 (18) E.L.T. 680 (Tribunal) = (1984 ECR 2018) wherein it has been held that "since glass fabrics and the housing are different commercial products and since the entry 22F(4) is a group entry and is wide enough to cover both of them. There is no illegality if the housing is taxed again under the same entry. This is not a case of double taxation on the same product but a case of multi-stage taxation on two diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 487. He submits that in this case a long practice had been disturbed just as in the two cases referred to above on the basis of which demand was restricted from the date of show cause notice alone. 8. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. Without going into the question whether the Explanation III added to Tariff Item 30 from 1.3.82 is retrospective or not, we are inclined to agree with the pleas of the learned SDR that the Tariff Item 30 as it stood before 1.3.82 covered within its ambit geared motors as well in view of the broad nature of the Tariff Item namely electric motors of 'all sorts'. There is no doubt on the basis of material available on record in paper book submitted by the appellants and specific attention having been drawn by the learned SDR to specific portions in the paper book as referred to above the products described by the appellants as motorised geared units and motorised speedall unit are nothing but gear boxes attached and coupled with the electric motors thus making them geared electric motors as commercially known to the market. Having regard to the amplitude of the Tariff Item 30 mentioned supra geared motors are covere....