COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ALCO INDUSTRIES MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 26.8.1987 of the learned single Judge made in a batch of writ petitions disposed of together regard to the fact that they involve a common question as to whether "wet grinder" manufactured and sold is eligible to excise duty under Excise Tariff Item 33-C of the Excise Tariff in the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Having regard the nature of the issue involved before us, they are dealt with in common by us.

(2.) THE basic and relevant facts necessary for our purpose are beyond controversy. respondents herein who were the writ petitioners manufacture and sell what is commercially known and called as "wet grinders". THE goods sold are complete units after assembling the respective factory of the manufacturers and that the invoices are raised separately motor portion and for grinder portion and that what is manufactured is really the grinder portion and the electric motors purchased from outside from its manufacturers are attached and fixed with the grinder. THE grinders as such have no electrical connection for operation by receiving electrical energy. But on the other hand the motor is placed along with provided with pulleys for relating the grinder by means of V-belts. Thus so far as manufacturers in question are concerned, what they really do is they manufacture grinder and purchase the electric motors separately from another manufacturer and virtually fits up the electric motor to the steel frame of the wet grinder in the space allotted for same and connects the wheel base of the grinder with that of the motor by using a V

(3.) BEFORE the learned single Judge, what was urged on behalf of the various writ petitioners was that the wet grinders in question manufactured and sold by them will not fall under 33-C of the Central Excise Tariff, inasmuch as they did not have inbuilt motors for operations of the system itself and the grinders are operated by V-belt mechanism and through external motors. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that identical issue the Gujarat High Court in the decisions reported in Bala-krishna Rechhodlal Shah and others v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad and others, 1979 377, and Shri Punit Ghar Ganti v. Union of India and another, 1981 E.L.T. 121, held that grinders will not fall under Item 33-C and the Central Excise law being a Central enactment must be enforced uniformly throughout the country and the contrary view or stand taken the Central Excise Authorities in Tamil Nadu cannot be countenanced. Reliance was placed on the fact that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Department against judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was rejected in limine Supreme Court of India and leave to appeal was refused. It was further contended that the conclusion reached by the Collector of Central Excise in a conference was accepted Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Central Government issued appropriate instructions that the manufacture and sale of wet grinders will not fall under Item 33 Central Excise Tariff, it was not open to the Department to go back on the same or vary conclusions except for sufficient and cogent reasons based on fresh facts such as subsequent judicial pronouncements and that the authorities cannot depart from their earlier stand and when they like.