TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (10) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufactures component parts of water treatment plants, which are thereafter installed by petitioner No. 1. One of the components manufactured by the Company is that Figuring in the present case. The petitioners insist in describing that component as an "agitator", a "compressor" or an "air-blower". The said product is supplied without a motor, which is installed at the site of the filtration plant. The product is not an electric fan as contemplated by Tariff Item No. 33(2). Neither the shape nor the function of the product would justify its identification as a fan answering the description set out in the aforementioned Item. On 29 August, 1974, the Officers of the Excise Department, upon a visit to the Company, seized three agitators which we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said order as, it is not a Court of appeal or revision. 4. Having regard to the submissions aforementioned, the points for determination would be :- (1) Whether the respondents erred in holding that the product figuring in the case, falls under Tariff Item No. 33(2)? (2) Whether under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to quash the order made by respondents 2 to 4? I record affirmative answers to both the points and allow the petition for the reasons given below :- 5. Item No. 33(2) of the Central Excise Tariff is worded as under :- "Electric fans, designed for use in an industrial system as parts indispensable for its operation and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to see whether "electric fans of all sorts", come within the meaning of the expression, to have technical knowledge in electronics". These observations were made to repel the Contention that like an electric fan, the compressor sucked and blew air, thus bringing it within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 33(2). 6. According to Mr. Lokur, the 2nd respondent has analysed the equipment figuring here and held that it is an electric fan designed for an industrial use. I am referred to the following passage from respondent No. 2's order :- "air blowers manufactured by the noticees are of special shape and size to form part of the filtration plant which in turn is useful in an industry". That however, does not distinguish it so as to render th....