9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (11) TMI 142 - SC - Central ExciseWhether the Tribunal is correct in classifying Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 52? Held that - considering the fact that the Tie Bar Nuts function of fixing the platens as stated by the appellants and that of fastening as argued by them are not basically different and the appellants themselves having called the goods as nuts we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in classifying Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 52. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the department s prospective modification of the classification. We find no justification for classifying those in the residuary Item 68. As was held in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (1975 (10) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) if an article is classifiable under a specific item it would be against the very principle of classification to deny it the proper parentage and consign it to the residuary item. Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Classification of Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 52 or 68
Comprehensive Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 52 or 68 The appellants, manufacturers of Injection Moulding Machines, classified Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 68, while the department sought to classify them under Tariff Item 52. The Assistant Collector initially approved the classification under Tariff Item 52, leading to an appeal by the appellants to the Collector of Central Excise, who classified them under Tariff Item 68. The department then appealed to the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the department's appeal. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court under Sec. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Issue 2: Estoppel and Classification of Goods The appellants argued that the department's prior approval of the classification under Tariff Item 68 should prevent a revision. However, the court held that there could be no estoppel against a statute, and if the goods fell within Tariff Item 52 as per the law, the department could revise the classification. The court cited precedents to support this principle. Issue 3: Commercial Sense and Classification The court emphasized that goods should be classified according to their popular meaning or commercial sense, not just scientific or technical definitions. The court referred to various cases to support this principle. In the case at hand, the Tie Bar Nuts were considered to conform to the popular idea of nuts and were classified under Tariff Item 52 based on their function of fixing platens, which was deemed similar to fastening. Issue 4: Interpretation of 'Fasten' and 'Fix' The court delved into the meanings of 'fasten' and 'fix' from various dictionaries to determine the function of Tie Bar Nuts. The court found that the functions of fastening and fixing were not significantly different in the context of nuts, leading to the classification under Tariff Item 52. The court rejected the argument that Tie Bar Nuts did not primarily function as fasteners. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification of Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 52. The court found no reason to interfere with the department's classification and emphasized the importance of proper classification under specific items rather than the residuary item. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
