TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l), wherein the tribunal by a majority judgment held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the exemption granted under Notification No. 217/85 as amended in regard to the parts of nozzle and nozzle holders used by them in the manufacture of an internal combustion engine (ICE - diesel oil operated). 2. Before the tribunal the issue arose in view of the stand taken by the Department that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the said notification because the notification in question having not exempted nozzle and nozzle holders, the respondent cannot claim the benefit of the said notification in respect of the parts of nozzle and nozzle holders on the ground that they are used in the manufacture of original equ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f notification 217/85 (as amended), as held by the Technical Member. Or they are not entitled to the benefit of the said notification and matter requires to be remanded for considering the claim of benefit of Notification 216/87-C.E., dated 15-9-1987 and Notification 112/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988, as held by the Judicial Member." 5. Considering the said points, the third Member agreed with the Technical Member. While doing so, he held that parts of nozzle and nozzle holders cannot be deemed to be nozzle and nozzle holders which come into existence only as a result of series of process of assembling of various parts. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Member relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o nozzle and nozzle holders, it cannot be said that parts of such nozzle and nozzle holders are not excluded by the said notification. He contended that ultimately it is these parts which constitute the nozzle and nozzle holders which the exemption notification had excluded from its benefit therefore, it cannot be said that part of a part constituting a product, can be treated separately from the part which is not exempted. 7. Whereas Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the majority Members were justified in coming to the conclusion that nozzle and nozzle holders are not the same as part of the said nozzle and nozzle holders and the exemption notification not having specifically....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was held that in view of the fact that the parts which go into the manufacture of component parts that are in turn used in the manufacture of diesel oil operated internal combustion engines, hence, would also be entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/85 subject to fulfilment of other conditions. Therefore, in view of the above the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the appeal of the Department before us is an exercise in futility since the Department has accepted the claim of the respondent knowing very well these appeals are pending and without making those orders subject to the judgment of this Court. 8. We find substantial force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is true....