- (1.) The dispute relates to proper interpretation of an Excise Notification No. 310/77-CE dated 1/1/1977 as amended on 4/2/1978 which is as under: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1 of Rule 8 of the central Excise Rules, 1944, the central government hereby exempts parts of weigh-bridges falling under Item No. 45 of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon if produced in the factory of production of weigh-bridges or elsewhere: Provided that where the parts of weigh-bridges are produced elsewhere than in the factory of production of such weigh-bridges, the procedure laid down in Rule 56-A of the central Excise Rules, 1944 is followed. "
(2.) The contention of the appellant is that it manufactures weigh-bridges and imported some parts for this purpose. It claims that it is entitled to relief under the proviso to the notification.
(3.) This contention was rejected by the tribunal. The tribunal was of the view that the appellant would have been entitled to the relief if the parts were produced in the factory where manufacture of weigh-bridges took place. If the parts were not produced in that factory, the appellant would not get any benefit of the proviso.;