1985 (1) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rst respondent in Proceedings No. 846 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esaid parts are intended to be used as original 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....71." 4. Mr. A.K. Mylswami, the learned counsel appearing 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 c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this case is very specific to the effect that the concession is for original equipment parts available to the manufacturers of motor vehicles falling under item No. 34-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The present excise duty exemption is claimed for the replacement of the equipment during the warranty period. This, in my opinion, will not come under the category ....