G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) - (1.) THESE three appeals were originally filed as revision petitions before the Government of India, which have been statutorily transferred to this Tribunal as if they were appeals filed before this Tribunal under Section 35 P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
(2.) Since, the issues involved are similar in these three appeals, they are, therefore, clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts of the case in brief relating to these issues are that appellants M/s Texmaco Ltd. manufacturers of wagons. These wagons were supplied to the Railways on payment of duty calculated on the value of the wagon bodies only without including the value of the wheel sets supplied by the Railways and on which the wagon body was mounted on the ground that the appellants manufactured only the wagon body on the wheel sets supplied by the Railways and that they did not also charge for the value of such wheel sets in the invoices. The Assistant Collector who adjudicated the proceedings observed that a wagon is complete only when the wagon body is fitted to the wheel sets. That since they mount the wagon body on the wheel sets and deliver the wagons to the Railways after testing the operational capability, they become the manufacturers of the complete wagons and for that reason their duty liability rests on the value of complete wagons delivered to the Railways and accordingly he raised the demand on the value of wheel sets which was not included in the value of the wagons at the time of clearances. The contentions of the appellants that they were entitled to concession under Notification 120/75 dated 30-4-1975, required to pay duty on the charges contracted for the job work under Notification 119/75 dated 30-4-1975 and time barring aspect in raising demands were negatived by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Appellate Collector in appeal. Hence, these three appeals. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria with Ms. Rohina Agarwal learned advocate for the appellants and Smt. S. Baliga learned SDR for the respondent.
(3.) THE following issues arise for our consideration in these three appeals : 1. Whether the demand is barred by limitation for the part of the period in Appeal No. 945/80-A. 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 120/75-CE, dated 30-4-1975. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 119/75, dated 30-4-1975. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case whether Appellate Collector was justified in invoking/substituting Rule l0A/for Rule 10, at the appeal stage in Appeal No. 586/81A.;