It entered into agreements with different units who were duly licensed under the Act for manufacturing pumps and power driven pumps.
It was demonstrative of the fact that the amount was so ridiculously low that numberindependent unit manufactures a pump for such a low companyt.
This restriction was extended even if the pumps were got manufactured by others.
It also carried on trading in pumps.
According to the appellant, on the raw material supplied by it the independent units had manufactured according to specification given by the appellant.
In reply it was stated that the appellant had given raw materials to independent units who were number under companytrol or direction of the appellant.
The Tribunal did number agree even though it held that the appellant had numbercontrol over manufacturing process and the manufacturing parties but what persuaded the Tribunal to take the view against the appellant was that it found that the appellant sent companyponents in the shape of casting which by a little machining and grinding became pumps.
The appellant, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Was engaged in the manufacture of companybustion and diesel engines bearing brand name Atul Shakti for which it was duly f licensed under the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 Act for short .
85/72.
Therefore, the work carried on by the independent units companyld number be deemed to be on behalf of the appellant and the appellant companyld number be denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No.
one lakh.
Therefore, it was number entitled to exemption unless the value of pumps manufactured by different parties under the agreement was excluded from its clearance.
The appellant had cleared goods which exceeded Rupees One Lakh in the years in dispute.
In October, 1977 the appellant was served with a show cause numberice by the Central Excise Department that they got the power driven pumps manufactured with brand name Atul Shakti from the different manufacturing units who in fact were manufacturing these pumps on behalf of the appellant.
The exemption under Notification number85/72 dated 17th March 1972 was available for power driven pumps if the value did number exceed Rs.
10/ per pump.
In other words if value of the pumps sold by the appellant did number exceed Rupees One Lakh whether manufactured by the appellant or on its behalf by others then only it was entitled to exemption.
85/72 dated 17.3.1972 or they were assessable to duty under item 30A of the Central Excise Tariff is the short question that arises for companysideration in this appeal directed against order passed by the , Custom, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
M. SAHAI, J. Whether oil driven pumps sold by the appellant were exempt under Notification No.
