1983 (7) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Madras, against the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 25-8-1982 in No. 270. The appeal has been adjourned on two occasions at the instance of the respondent herein and when the appeal was called out today, neither the respondent nor any authorised representative on their behalf was present. The appeal is therefore disposed on merits. 2.  The respondent exported a cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the benefit of rebate under Rule 12 notwithstanding the fact that electric motor only formed a component part of grinder/drilling machine which the respondent admittedly exported. The Collector has preferred an appeal against the order of the Board before the Tribunal. 3.  The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the notification issued under Rule 12 of the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uards, conditions, limitations etc., as may be specified in the notification. The respondent-company have admittedly exported grinders and drilling machines only and merely because electric motor formed a component part of grinder/drilling machine or fitted thereto, "electric motors or parts" could not be said to have been exported outside India within the meaning of Rule 12 read with the relevant....