Skip to content


Southern Press Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1984)(16)ELT542TriDel
AppellantSouthern Press Tools Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....tribunal and is being treated as an appeal. the appellants are fabricating parts of radiators for motor vehicles. the appellate collector rejected the appeal on the ground that the parts manufactured by the appellants were "goods" and the person supplying the raw material and the appellants are two different entities. accordingly, he held that the fabricated part of the radiator is not a radiator and as such it cannot be considered as a part of a motor vehicle. the appellants have contended that manufacturing of radiator requires several processes before it can be used as radiator in a motor vehicle. in the instant case the appellants carry out certain processes on the raw-materials supplied to them and return them to m/s. universal radiators ltd. in other words, what is delivered by.....
Judgment:
1. The appellants have by their application received on 21-11-83 requested that the case be decided on the basis of the records, since they would not be able to make personal appearance. Accordingly, the appeal was considered on merits on the basis of the grounds of appeal and hearing granted to the Departmental Representative.

2. M/s. Southern Press Tools (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, have filed a revision application dated 2-2-79, against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, No. V/68/26/77 dated 6-11-78, which has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal. The appellants are fabricating parts of radiators for motor vehicles. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal on the ground that the parts manufactured by the appellants were "goods" and the person supplying the raw material and the appellants are two different entities. Accordingly, he held that the fabricated part of the radiator is not a radiator and as such it cannot be considered as a part of a motor vehicle. The appellants have contended that manufacturing of radiator requires several processes before it can be used as radiator in a motor vehicle. In the instant case the appellants carry out certain processes on the raw-materials supplied to them and return them to M/s. Universal Radiators Ltd. In other words, what is delivered by the appellants to M/s. Universal Radiators can be termed as radiator in the process of manufacturing. The appellants further contended that the fabricated item made by the appellant is not in a fully manufactured condition. It has no commercial name and cannot be marketed as such.

Accordingly, this cannot be considered as "goods" within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. In the alternative, the appellants further argued that since radiators are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No.99/71, dated 29-5-71 as amended from time-to-time. The fabricated part of the radiator, even if it is considered as fully manufactured, should be exempted from duty under the aforesaid Notification. This Notification exempts all parts and accessories of motor vehicle except those as are specified therein. The appellants therefore argue that the fabricated parts of the radiator, manufactured by them, should be exempted from payment of Excise duty like another part of the motor vehicle. The appellants have further referred to Notification No.119/75, dated 30-4-75 and stated that only such goods as are manufactured on jobwork basis, and followed in T.I. 68, C.E.T., would be liable to pay duty on the jobwork charges. In the present case the product is part of radiatar, a motor vehicle part though in the fabricated condition. Hence the Notification 119/75 is not attracted since . the radiator part is not assessable under Item 68, CET. The Departmental Representative has countered the above contentions of the appellants and has stated that the goods in question are, in fact, semi-finished component parts of radiator which are manufactured from the raw-materials supplied by M/s. Universal Radiators to the appellants. The parts so fabricated by the appellants fall under Item 68 of the Tariff and not under 34A, CET as such they would not be eligible to the exemption under Notification No. 99/71, dated 29-5-71 as amended. The Bench is of the view that the fabrication process undertaken by appellants has not resulted in an identifiable or distinct manufactured product or goods. Even if it is assumed that this process results in production of radiator parts, these would be eligible to exemption under the Notification No. 99/71, dated 29-5-71 as part of a radiator. The appeal is accordingly allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //