AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI and S.P. Bharucha, JJ.—We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. He tried to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the authorities as well as the Tribunal below that armatures are not rotors and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty. We have perused the evidence adduced in this behalf and we are satisfied that the view taken by the authorities below as well as the Tribunal, cannot be said to be one which calls for interference. There is also nothing on the record to show that in commercial parlance a rotor and an armature have precise and definite meanings and are not treated as identical. Even if a rotor and an armature are not taken to be one and the same commodity, they perform the similar function and have the same characteristics and, therefore, if the authorities and the Tribunal concluded that armatures also come within the meaning of rotors, we see no reason to interfere.
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.