ORDER 1. The respondent manufactures monobloc pumps. For this purpose it also manufactures stators and rotors which are actively consumed by it in such manufacture. The monobloc pumps were classifiable and in fact classified by the Revenue under Tariff Item 30-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it stood prior to its amendment: "Item No.Tariff description Rate of duty 30-A Power-driven pumps (including Twenty per cent ad valorem." motor pumps, turbo pumps and monobloc pump sets) for liquids, whether or not fitted with measuring devices. 2. The Revenue Authorities, however, sought to classify the rotors and stators under Tariff Item 30-D. Tariff Item 30 relates to electric motors, all sorts and parts thereof. Sub-items A, B, and D mention different items falling within this tariff item. As far as Tariff Item 30-D is concerned, it relates to "parts of electric motors including die-cast rotors". 3. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the evidence on record showed that the rotors and stators manufactured by the respondent were of a specific design for use in monobloc pumps. It was also recorded that the rotors and stators were not interchangeable and could not be used in electric motors. The Tribunal accordingly came to the conclusion while reversing the decision of the departmental authorities that the rotors and stators were not parts of any electric motor manufactured by the respondent herein but parts of the monobloc pumps and were, therefore, classifiable under the residuary head of Item 68. 4. The departmental authorities had proceeded on the basis of the notice issued on 1-5-1981 being Notice No. 11 0/81, the relevant part of which reads as under: "2. It is clarified that in the case of monobloc pumps where an electric motor does not come into existence in an identifiable manner and is not separable; its classification under Item 30 may not be warranted. In such cases, the casing and the shaft is common to the pumps as well as to the rotors and stators. Although, an electric motor as such does not come into existence independently in such instances the manufacture of rotors and stators cannot be denied. Rotors and stators forming component parts of monobloc pumps in question, will have to pay duty under Item 30-D, before their removal for the manufacture of monobloc pumps." 5. Although, an electric motor as such does not come into existence independently in such instances the manufacture of rotors and stators cannot be denied. Rotors and stators forming component parts of monobloc pumps in question, will have to pay duty under Item 30-D, before their removal for the manufacture of monobloc pumps." 5. The circular, therefore, holds: (1) that if the electric motor does not come into existence as an identifiable manner and is not separable from the monobloc pumps it cannot be classified as an electric motor under Tariff Item 30; and (2) even though the motors cannot be classified as electric motor, the rotors and stators which form part of the monobloc pumps would be classified as parts of electric motors. We find the trade notice singularly illogical. Where no electric motor comes into existence for the purpose of being classified under Tariff Item 30, it would be irrational to hold that an item would be any part of such "non-existent" electric motor. Second, having a regard to the specific finding of fact as recorded by the Tribunal, which finding has not been questioned by the Revenue before us, we cannot accede to the Revenues submission that the rotors and stators manufactured by the respondent in the process of manufacturing the monobloc pumps are classifiable under Tariff Item 30-D. 6. Finally, the respondent has been assessed to excise duty for the manufacture of the monobloc pumps. It was never the authorities case that the respondent had manufactured electric motors and was at any time liable to pay any excise duty under Tariff Item 30. It would follow that the parts manufactured by the respondent in connection with this end product would necessarily be a part of that end component. Since the tariff did not, prior to its amendment, provide separately for the eligibility of parts of monobloc pumps, the item would have to be classified under Tariff Item 68, which is the residuary item. 7. Some arguments have also been addressed with regard to the changes effected to the Act by subsequent enactment of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the separate entries thereunder. However, we need not to go into these questions for the purpose of these appeals. 8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.