1999(12)LCX0232

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

Versus

BHARAT BIJLEE LTD.

Final Order No. 133/2000-B, dated 6-12-1999 in Appeal No. E/13/97-B

Advocated By :   Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 160/86-CE, dated 1-3-1986 which provided concessional rate of duty in respect of the goods covered by Chapter heading 85.04 but such exemption was not available to the transformers and chokes for fluorescent tubes. The issue for consideration is whether the parts of the transformers will also be excluded from the purview of the above mentioned exemption notification. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had observed that the department has already accepted the claim of the assessee and the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-CE had been extended in their favour. He had also referred to the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise dated 5-11-1992. Further he has observed that the refund, if any, will be subject to the provisions of unjust enrichment.

2. We have heard shri R.S. Sangia, DR and have gone through the records. We find that in the exemption notification only the transformers as such are excluded. The parts of transformers are not excluded as such. Although for classification of the parts if such parts are principally for use in transformers, they will be classifiable as per the rate of duty applicable to transformers, the parts will remain still the parts. Even when the rate of duty as applicable to transformers is made applicable to the parts by virtue of Section Notes, it does not mean that parts lose their separate identity. As the exemption has to be interpreted as it is worded, and as when the legislature so decided, the parts had also been mentioned specifically in the exemption notification, we do not find any fault with the reasoning adopted by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

3. Taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

______

Equivalent 2000 (123) ELT 729 (Tribunal)