2005 (6) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umps out of the spare parts and cleared the same (on payment of duty) to another customer. The return of these spare parts was in terms of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Having removed the concrete pump on payment of duty, the party filed a claim under Rule 173L for refund of the duty paid initially on the spare parts. This claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the returned spare parts had not been subjected to any of the processes specified under Rule 173L(1) viz., remaking, refining, reconditioning or other similar processes. This decision of the adjudicating authority was set aside by the first appellate authority relying on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. Commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the returned spare parts were not subsequently removed as spare parts. A concrete pump was manufactured out of those spare parts and the same was removed on payment of duty. By no stretch of imagination can the pump be considered to be the same as its spare parts. These are two different goods falling under two different sub-headings in the Tariff (8413.99 and 8413.80). The spare parts were totally valued at a little over Rs. 2.5 lakhs whereas the pump was valued at Rs. 23 lakhs. Admittedly, the pump was manufactured out of the spare parts. Such process of manufacture yielding an entirely different commodity which is many times costlier than the inputs cannot belong to the realm of remaking, refining, reconditioning or "other similar proc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Here the spare parts that were returned to the factory have been used in the manufacture of machinery, which is of a different class. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in placing reliance in the said case law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in 6. placing reliance in the case of Taylor Instrument Co. (I) Ltd. manufactured "Electronic Industrial Process Control Instruments". As the goods were highly sophisticated and sensitive, the goods once returned to the factory had to be re-tested, re-checked and recaliberated before they were to be sold again. However, even after such re-testing, re-checking and recalibration, the goods remained the same and were of the same class. Whereas in the instant case the goods brought i....