G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)

1. Appeals E/1248/92, E/1249/92, E/1250/92 and E/4052/90 are filed by the Department on the issue of availability of exemption in respect of stampings and laminations in terms of Notification No. 64/86, dated 10-2-1986 as amended, since the decision was not in favour of the Department as per the respective impugned orders. Similarly feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the concerned Collectors (Appeals) on the very issue, M/s. Coimbatore Rajendra Industries and M/s. Precision Stamping are also filed appeals in 2689/92 3421/92. Hence all these matters are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the parties and Department was duly represented by Shri S.K. Sharma, learned JDR.

3. Notification No. 64/86 as amended by Notification No. 236/86 is reproduced as under :

"MACHINERY, APPLIANCES AND IMPLEMENTS

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 64/86-Central Excises, dated the 10th February, 1986, namely :-

In the Table to the said notification, after SI. No. 15 and the entries relating thereto, the following SI. No. and entries shall be inserted, namely :-

4. Shri Sridharan arguing for the parties submitted that the conditions envisaged in the Notification are fulfilled and it is an admitted fact that these are parts of the parts of the power driven pumps, but exemption was denied on the ground that benefit of exemption under Notification is applicable to the parts of the power driven pumps but not to the parts of the parts of P.D. pumps. He said that Department erred in interpreting the Notification that exemption is applicable to the parts of the "pump" portion and not to other portion. He drew our attention to the observation made by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order-in-appeal No. 3421/92 which reads as under :-

"I observe that it grants inter alia exemption to "Parts of power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water, namely :- (a) Centrifugal pumps (horizontal or vertical pumps) (b) Deep tubewell turbine pump (c) Submersible pumps and (d) Axial flow and mixed flow vertical pumps." I find that the expression used is "Power driven pumps". In my view, the main emphasis is that the parts are to be of the "pump" portion and it applies to such pumps which are designed to be driven by power. No doubt, there are sets in which the pump portion and the power generating portion namely the electric motor are integrated into one like in a monoblock pump or they may be separate entities also but in both the situations there can be no dispute about the fact that stampings and laminations are evidently parts of rotor and stator which in turn are parts of the power generating unit. The rotor stator are not parts of "pump" portion."

5. He contended that notification has to be understood that exemption is applicable to all portion of P.D. pumps and not to some 'portion'. He said part of the part of P.D. machine is also a part of the P.D. machine and Chapter 83 has been mentioned as against SI. No. 16 of the Notification and Electrical Stampings and Laminations falling under heading 83.12. He also said that no other goods falling under Chapter 83 which could have been any application in the manufacture of power driven pumps other than stampings and laminations and notification becomes redundant to that extent if the exemption is denied on the item in question. In support of his contention that part of the part is also part of the main item, he referred to the following decisions :

5.1 In the case of Audio Vision Electronics v. Collector of Customs [MANU/CE/0265/1987 : 1987 (31) ELT 796], it was held in para 5 of the said decision that the component of a component of the machine is also a compon