COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MENON PISTONS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are as briefly stated below:

(2.) THE appellants were engaged in the manufacture of gauges and value checking plates and certain other goods during the relevant period. In the classification list effective from 28.2.93, filed by the appellants under Rule 173 -B of the Central Excise Rules, they had claimed exemption from duty on gauges and value checking plates under Notification No. 217/86 dated 2.4.1986. The Department took the view that exemption under the said Notification was not available to the above products because, according to them, the said products were not covered by the expression "inputs" under the Notification. The Department accordingly, by show cause notice, demanded duty on the clearances of gauges and valve checking plates made by the party during the period December 1992 to May 1993, amounting to Rs. 238.87. The appellants contested this demand by way of their reply to the show cause notice. The dispute was adjudicated by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, who held that the gauges and valve checking plates, used for measuring and checking of goods during the process of manufacture of final products in the appellant's factory, were excluded from the purview of Notification No. 217/ 86 and hence not eligible for the benefit of exemption from duty. The adjudicating authority, therefore, confirmed the above demand of duty. In the appeal filed by the aggrieved party against the order of adjudication of the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of adjudication and allowed the appeal, holding that the products in question were not covered by Explanation (i) to the Notification. It was against this order of the learned Collector (Appeals) that the Revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and connected records of the case. We have also heard the learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal for the Appellants/Revenue. No one is present for the respondents.