Full Judgment
2. We find that the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decision vide order no. E/505/96-B1, dated 25-9-1996, in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jyoti Electrical Motor Ltd. (Appeal No. E/1883/87-B) and Order No. E/506/96-B1, dated 25-9-1996 in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Saga Windel Engineers (Appeal No. E/1110/87-B1).
3. Paras 2 and 3 from the decision in the case of Saga Windel Engineers, referred to above, are extracted below : "2. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and have given our due consideration and thought to the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Division-III, Ahmedabad under his order dated 15-6-1982 had observed that in the case of Saga Windel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. the electric motor does not come into existence and is not separable easily from the mono block pump. The assessee had sought exemption under Notification, dated 13-4-1988 out the same was denied to them by the are Asstt. Collector in the aforesaid order, who had held that the assessee was required to pay CED on rotors and stators under T.I. SOD of the old Central Excise Tariff, which covered parts of electric motors (including Die Cast Rotors). In their cross objections filed before the Tribunal, the respondent had clarified that in the course of manufacture of mono block pumps, electric motor in an identifiable and separable manner does not come, into existence at any stage. The stators and rotors form the component parts of mono block pumps. The stators and rotors when manufactured and assembled with casing, chamber, stuffing boxes, impeller, etc., are known only as mono block pump and the electric motor does not come into existence in an identifiable and separable manner.
3. The matter relates to the old Central Excise Tariff when under T.I. 30 electric motors and parts of electric motors and parts of electric motors including rotors and stators were separately classifiable. There was a provision that if rotors and stators after paying duty are used in the manufacture of electric motors then set-off will be available. The respondents had already paid duty as applicable to the parts of electric motors and both the Asstt.
Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had held that electric motor does not come into existence in the present case in an identifiable manner during the course of manufacture of mono block pumps." 4. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, and as a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.