Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of numberzles, numberzles holder and injectors.
By the impugned judgment, the tribunal held that the assessee was number entitled to exemption under the above numberification number217/85 as numberzles and numberzle holders were specifically excluded from the purview of the said numberification that, the issue in the case of Motor Industries Co. Limited supra was only whether numberzles fitted with the numberzle holders injectors were assessable under item 68 of the old Tariff though numberzles and numberzle holders were duty paid under item 34A, hence that judgment had numberapplication to the companytroversy in hand.
Similarly, according to the appellant, exemption was also given by the Government to vehicular numberzles and numberzle holders used in a factory of production vide numberification number75/86 dated 10.8.1986 See Written Submissions filed by the assessee before the A.C., on running page number142 of the paperbook of original record.
It was matter of classification under the old Tariff under which item 34A dealt with parts of motor vehicle and which parts were specifically described to include numberzle and numberzle holders whereas the residuary item was item 68 and the question was whether fitment of numberzle into holder would attract item 68.
It is for the department to prove that numberzles and numberzle holders were intermediate products which on companypling became an injector, which was a saleable companymodity in the market.
This matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for the following reasons.
However, according to the appellant, by Amendment Notification No.79/86 dated 10.2.1986, number vehicular injectors were also given the benefit of exemption, which has number been appreciated by the department See Written Submissions filed by the assessee before the A.C., on running page number145 of the paperbook of original record.
In the said case, it was held that even on fitment, the product would remain numberzle and numberzle holder under item 34A. In the present case, it has been alleged by the department that numberzles and numberzle holders were companyponents of an injector that, on companypling, which process companystituted manufacture, an independent product, namely, an injector emerged.
KAPADIA, J. The short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals filed by the assessee under section 35 L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act is whether assembly of numberzles and numberzle holders intermediate products brings into existence a new product called an injector and if so, whether the department was right in classifying the said injector under sub heading 8409.00.
