1991 (9) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of 'Foundation Bolts' under Item 52 or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which classified 'Foundation Bolts' under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector had initially classified them under Item 52, considering their function of fastening machinery to the foundation. The Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that since the bolts were not commercially available and not known as bolts, nuts, or screws in the market, they should be classified under Item 68. The appellant argued that the primary function of the bolts was fastening machinery to the foundation, supporting this claim with the Explanatory Notes to Heading 73.32 of the CCCN. They also cited a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case. The respondents contended that the bolts were essential components for erecting equipment and did not meet the market parlance test for being classified under Item 52. They referenced a Supreme Court decision to support their argument. The appellant's representative highlighted Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that captive use of a product does not affect its classification. The Tribunal noted that the Collector (Appeals) did not provide new evidence to reverse the Assistant Collector's factual finding that the bolts functioned as fasteners. The Tribunal found the appellant's arguments supported by Supreme Court decisions, ruling in favor of the Department and allowing their appeal.

This judgment involved a dispute over the classification of 'Foundation Bolts' under the Central Excise Tariff. The primary issue was whether the bolts should be classified under Item 52 or Item 68. The Assistant Collector initially classified them under Item 52 based on their function of fastening machinery to the foundation. However, the Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that since the bolts were not commercially available as bolts, nuts, or screws, they should be classified under Item 68. The appellant argued that the bolts' main function was fastening machinery to the foundation, supported by the Explanatory Notes and a previous Tribunal decision. The respondents contended that the bolts were essential components for erecting equipment and did not meet the market parlance test for Item 52. They referenced a Supreme Court decision to support their argument. The appellant's representative cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that captive use does not affect classification. The Tribunal found that the Collector (Appeals) did not provide new evidence to reverse the Assistant Collector's factual finding, ruling in favor of the Department based on the Supreme Court decisions and allowing their appeal.