TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (1) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of dated 22nd August, 1978. As per this order, the first respondent has held that the replacement parts cannot be treated as original equipment parts entitling the exemption contemplated under Notification No. 101 of 1971-Central Excise. 2. The short facts of this case are :-The petitioners are the manufacturers of motor cycles. They purchase original parts from the market and assemble the motor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al equipment parts by the manufacturers of motor vehicles falling under item No. 34 of the aforesaid Schedule; and (ii) in relation to any concession in respect of any such parts the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said Rules is followed." 3. In this particular case, the petitioners claimed exemption from the excise duty for the substituted parts fixed in the motor cycles sold by them duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing for the petitioners, has tried to draw analogy by referring to the decision reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Messrs Premnath Motors (P) Ltd. - 1979 Lawyer page 65, wherein the Delhi High Court had occasion to consider the propriety of levying sales-tax on the materials replaced by the assessee during the warranty period. In that case the Delhi High Court held : "The view taken by t....