1984 (6) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad/CE/81, dated 3-7-1981, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. By the said order, the learned Appellate Collector held that Rotors & Stators, which went in as component parts in the manufacture of P.D. Pumps were captively consumed and were not chargeable to Central Excise duty with reference to Rule 9 read with Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty could be charged on P.D. Pump as a whole and not on each component part separately. 2. The appellants filed a Classification List in respect of eight items of excisable goods claiming Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 57/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Varanasi by his order dated 3-2-1979, held that the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... removal from the place or premises of manufacture. Parties agreed before the Bench that in view of this amendment in the Rules, the ground on which the Appellate Collector had granted relief to the respondents was untenable and the Appellate Order would have, therefore, to be set aside. 5. Shri K. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the respondents however resisted the show cause notice on other grounds. These grounds are : that the subject goods i.e. rotors and stators are in fact specially designed components for being fitted into a P.D. Monoblock pump set. These components are incapable of being used as parts for the assembly of Electric Motors. He further contended that the rotors and stators are not known in trade parlance as part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondents' contention that the Rotors/Stators in question used in monoblock pumps cannot identified as parts of Electric Motors. 6. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Senior Departmental Representative appearing for the appellants strongly urged that the respondent should not be allowed to urge new grounds other than those urged before the Appellate Collector in defence of the show cause notice. 7. Shri Narasimhan, learned Counsel in support of his contention that the Tribunal had wide powers in allowing new grounds to be raised, relied on the following decisions : (i) Hukam Chand Mills v. C.I.T. - (1967) 63 ITR 232 (S.C.); (ii) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills - (1967) 66 ITR 710 (S.C.); (iii) (1967) 66 ITR 722 (S.C.) in the....