- (1.) Heard Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Tarun Gulati alongwith Sri Nishant Misra and Sri Anupam Misra, learned counsel for the respondent. Preliminary objection:
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has raised the preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal as under: (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal is a common order passed in two appeals and as such the present single appeal against the orders passed in two appeals, is not maintainable. (b) The controversy involved in the present appeal is also with respect to admissibility of exemption and as such the jurisdiction lies with the Hon'ble Supreme Court to entertain such appeal under Section 35 L of the Central Excise Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Submissions of the Appellant
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal was filed as back as in the year 2007 and it was admitted by orders dated 18.3.2010 read with order dated 18.11.2011 and as such the objection as to filing of separate appeal cannot be raised. With regard to the second preliminary objection, he submits that the issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the bought out Pumps and own manufactured I.C. Engine put in single carton by the assessee would amount to manufacture of Power Driven Pumps (hereinafter referred to as the "PD Pumps"). Thus, the basic question involved is as to whether the aforesaid activity amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act. If this question is answered in affirmative only then the question of exemption on the PD Pumps removed and sold by the assessee would arise.;