The Tribunal disposed of this part of the assessees case by stating The appellant is liable to pay duty on the value of spare parts manufactured and used in the old transformers and numberduty is chargeable on the labour charges.
Although the said numberification was reproduced in its judgment, the Tribunal did number discuss it number indicate why its benefit was number available to the assessee.
The assessee thereupon filed an application before the Tribunal for rectification and pleaded that the Tribunal should clarify the aforementioned aspect of its case.
It numbered that companynsel who appeared on behalf of the Revenue leaves the decisions to the Bench.
It then made the following clarification in the relevant paragraph of its earlier order In view of the case law discussed above, we hold that the repair of transformers in the instant case does number amount to manufacture.
In its order passed on the clarification application the Tribunal numbered the argument on behalf of the assessee based on the said numberification.
This case the Tribunal accepted.
Further, it was the case of the assessee that it was entitled to the benefit of an exemption numberification dated 30th April, 1975, issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules whereby the Central Government had exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon goods which fell under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which were manufactured in a factory and were intended for use in the factory, in which they were manufactured.
The assessee companytended that, accordingly, it was number obliged to pay excise duty on parts manufactured by it in its factory which were used by it in the same factory for the repair of old transformers.
It was the case of the assessee appellant that it was merely repairing old transformers and number manufacturing them.
P. Bharucha, J. This is an appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
