http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1925 of 2002

PETITIONER: M/s. Marsons Fan Industries

RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.1925 OF 2002

       The appellant is a small scale industry.  It commenced manufacturing electric fans  falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item No.33 prior to coming into force of Central Excise  Tariff Act, 1985, after obtaining central excise licence.  Rotors and stators falling under  Tariff Item 30D which are essential components required for the manufacture of electric  fans, were also manufactured by the appellant and captively used.  The appellant, from  time to time, also received orders for doing diverse specific specialised processing work on   job work basis on customers’ raw materials like winding, die casting, coil setting etc. whic h  did not transform the customers’ raw materials into rotors and stators as commercially  known and the customers undertook various further processes in their own factories to  manufacture rotors and stators and used the same in the manufacture of their fans.           For the period January 1983 to March 1984, the Collector vide its order dated 31st M ay  1988 held that the rotors and stators were complete and were manufactured by the  appellant and  

C.A.No.1925/02 .... (Contd.) - 2 - thus exigible to the levy of excise duty.  This order was confirmed by the Tribunal by the  impugned order dated 27th April 2001. Order of the Tribunal as well as that of the  Collector are under challenge in this appeal.         Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has brough t  to our notice that in a case pertaining to earlier period from February 1982 to December  1982 of the assessee, the Collector (very same officer) in Order (Original) No.61(30-D)87- Collr. 57/89 dated 21st July 1989 took the view that rotors and stators were incomplete and  were unfinished goods not known in the market as stators and rotors.  He also states that  the subsequent order dated 21st July 1989 was brought to the notice of the Tribunal but the  Tribunal did not take note of it.  In support of his assertion, learned senior counsel has  filed an affidavit of the counsel who had appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal.  He   further states that the Department has accepted the subsequent decision dated 21st July  1989 for the period February 1982 to December 1982.  He submits that in view of the fact  that the Department has accepted the subsequent decision dated 21st July 1989 in which it  has been held that the rotors and stators in the form in which they are cleared from the  appellant’s factory are not finished goods and, therefore, not exigible to the levy of excis e  duty, the present appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.

C.A.No.1925/02 .... (Contd.) - 3 -         Learned senior counsel for the Department, after taking instructions, very fairly su

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

bmits  that the Department has accepted the decision dated 21st July 1989 and the same has  attained finality.           Keeping in view the fact that the Department has accepted the decision dated 21st Ju ly  1989 pertaining to the assessee itself on the similar goods, we accept this appeal and set  aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the rotors and stators which were cleared by  the appellant were not finished goods and were, therefore, not exigible to the levy of excis e  duty for the relevant period.          For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed.