1988 (9) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product "Bogie Centre Pivot Bold (Pin)" under Tariff Item 52 or Tariff Item 68, Time limit for demanding duty, Technical classification of the pivot bolt.

Classification Issue:
The appeal concerns the classification of the product "Bogie Centre Pivot Bold (Pin)" as either Tariff Item 52 or Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The department argues for classification under Tariff Item 52, while the appellant asserts it should be classified under Tariff Item 68 as a component part of a railway wagon. The appellant argues that the pivot bolt allows for a swiveling effect necessary for smooth movement over curved tracks, emphasizing its role as a component part rather than a mere fastener. The appellant cites relevant case law, including a judgment from the Karnataka High Court and decisions of the Tribunal, to support their position.

Time Limit Issue:
Regarding the time limit for demanding duty, the appellant contends that duty prior to 14-4-1982 should be time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 14-10-1982. However, the department argues that a period of five years is applicable due to the appellant's alleged suppression of the fact of production and consumption of the pivot bolt for captive use in manufacturing railway wagons.

Technical Classification Issue:
The technical aspect of the pivot bolt is crucial in determining its primary function for classification purposes. The Tribunal notes discrepancies in the technical write-up provided by the appellant's advocate and emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation into whether the pivot bolt rigidly fastens the bogie assembly and underframe of the wagon together. The Tribunal decides to remand the case to the adjudicating authority for further examination and collection of fresh evidence to ascertain the pivot bolt's actual function.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allows the appeal to a limited extent, remanding the case for a detailed investigation into the technical aspects of the pivot bolt to determine its primary function and classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The time limit for demanding duty is upheld based on the appellant's alleged suppression of facts, extending the period to five years. The decision emphasizes the importance of technical analysis in classifying products under the appropriate tariff items.