Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. P.L.A. Components

1. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the collector of central excise (appeals) bombay who has held that the benefit of notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986 is available to relays manufactured by the respondents herein, upholding the order of the assistant collector who had extended the benefit. according to the department, relays are nothing but switches and not eligible to the benefit of notification since switches are excluded from coverage under the notification.2. we have heard shri jagdish singh, learned dr and shri s.p. pathak, learned advocate. we find that the lower appellate authority has gone into the definition of relays and switches in the technical dictionaries such as mcgraw hill dictionary of scientific and technical terms, as well as hsn explanatory notes. the hsn explanatory notes at page 1989 makes a distinction between switches and relays although both are apparatus for switching electrical circuits. isi standards have different specifications for switches and relays. although relays and switches perform the function of making or breaking electrical circuits, that does not make them one and the same item. in the case of c.c.e. v. l & t ltd. reported in 1993 (63) e.l.t. 717, the tribunal has held that the benefit of exemption under notification 160/86 (same notification as is involved in the present appeal) is available to contractors which are different commercial commodity from switches although both are used for making or breaking electrical circuits. the commissioner (appeals) has relied upon this decision to hold that relays are distinct and different from switches. the learned dr has not been able to adduce convincing argument for dislodging the findings of the lower appellate authority which we concur with.