TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Chinchwad factory and clear the same under exemption Notification No. 118/75-Central Excise, dated 30.4.1975 to their Pimpri factory where they manufacture, inter alia, Hydraulic rivetting Guns. The power packs supply the requisite power to the guns. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 31.3.1980, held that the composite equipment consisting of the power pack, pipeline and the rivetting gun was a complete machinery excisable under Item No. 68 (CET, i.e., the Central Excise Tariff Schedule) and ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75, dated 30.4.1975. In appeal, the Appellate Collector, by his order, upheld the Assistant Collector's order. Appeal No. 1628/81 is against this order. 3. Turning to appeal No. 200/82, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 597/PN-31/81, dated 14.5.1981 and the revision proceedings before the Collector, Pune (disposed of by his order No. VGN(30)-158/ VC/80, dated 13.1.1982]. In the normal course, there should have been no occasion for this situation. However, at the material time, while the assessee had the right of appeal against the order-in-original under Section 35 of the Act, the Collector had the power of revision under Section 35 A of the Act. The appeal by TELCO was dated 4.7.1980 (the date of actual filing is not clear) while the Collector's show cause notice to TELCO under Section 35A was dated 28.8.1980. The Appellate Collector had disposed of the appeal by his order dated 14.5.1981, dispatched on 5.6.1981. The Collector, Pune's Order-in-Revisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-revision on 13.1.1982, the Assistant Collector's order had, on being upheld by the Appellate Collector by the order-in-appeal dated 14.5.1981, merged with the order of the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, Appeal No. 200/82 is allowed and the Collector's order-in-revision dated 13.1.1982 is set aside on the issue of lack of jurisdiction, without going into the merits of the case. 8. We shall now take up appeal No. 1628/81. There is no dispute about the classification of power packs. They are classified under Item No. 68, CET and move from the Chinchwad factory to the Pimpri factory under duty exemption in terms of the Notification No. 118/75, dated 30.4.1975. The Assistant Collector held that Hydraulic rivetting Guns al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red. Rectilinear motions are obtained by hydraulic cylinders as discussed in the previous chapter. The requirement of rotary motions in any hydraulic system is fulfilled with the help of a Hydraulic Motor, also called Oil Motor or Fluid Motor. The pump which is driven by a prime mover draws fluid from the reservoir and forces into the hydraulic or fluid motor to create a rotary motion. This rotary motion of the hydraulic motor which is mechanically linked to the work load is utilised to perform the desired work. Thus, a hydraulic motor converts hydraulic energy into mechanical energy which is just opposite to the function of a hydraulic pump." On page 718 of Vol. 8 of McGraw Hill's Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, electric mot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hanism. Therefore, it is contended that the rivetting gun can be classified as a tool with the self-contained non-electric motor. It is added that compression of oil is achieved with the aid of power driven pumps which in turn are worked by electric motors and that the compressed oil is transferred, thereafter, through an intensifier, again with power driven pumps which are worked with electric motors. In short, it is the contention that the source of power for operation of the rivetting guns is derived from the power pack which in turn has got power driven pumps and electric motors attached to it and that, therefore, the source of power in the present case is only the electric motor. 11. We feel that the view put forward by the Collecto....