ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 5-5-1988 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In this case, the show cause notice issued to the respondents demanding duty on Rotors and Stators used in the manufacture of Monoblock Pumps. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise dropped the demand. The Revenue filed the appeal with the Collector (Appeals) and the Collector (Appeals), Bombay vide impugned order also dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
2. Heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR appearing for the appellants. In this case, in the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held as under :-
“I have carefully gone through the appeal petition and the cross- objection memorandum. The issue raised in the application is whether duty should be charged on the electric motors or rotors and stators used in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. It is observed that in the case of Monoblock pumps where electric motor does not come into existence in an identifiable manner and is not separable. In such cases, the casing and shaft are common to the pumps as well as to the rotors and stators. I find that the Ministry themselves have clarified vide their letter F. No. 147/3/80-CX. 4, dated 4-2-81 that under these circumstances classification under Tariff Item 30 is not warranted. In the State of Gujarat itself the Collectorate of Baroda has reiterated this portion through their Trade Notice No. 110/81, dated 1-5-81. It also therefore see it fit to invoke the principle of contemporaneo expositio. I, therefore, do not agree with the views of the Collector mentioned in his authorisation letter on the basis of which E.A. 2 has been filed against the Order No. D-15/86 (No. 17/86), dated 21-4-86.”
3. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Saga Windel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in Final Order No. E-506/96-B, dated 25-9-96 held that the driving mechanism in a monoblock pump could not be considered as a identifiable electric motors and that while rotors and stators before their use in such driving mechanism has to discharge the duty as parts of the electric motors, no further duty could be charged at the stage of the driving mechanism as electric motors.
4. The Tribunal in another case of Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Bomin (P) Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 163 (Tribunal) had also taken the same view.
5. In view of the above mentioned decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.