9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Vehicles. Tie Rod Ends have been subjected to duty under Notification 99/77, dated 25-9-1971 as subsequently amended. Drag Link Ends are quite different and distinguishable from Tie Rod Ends and have been kept outside the scope of the notification cited supra. During the period 30-6-1971 to 31-3-1973, the appellants had declared 1079 pairs of Tie Rod Ends valued at Rs. 21,565.90. It is alleged that they have mis-classified the same as Drag Link Ends involving Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,156.59. They have also declared during the period 1-2-1973 to 17-3-1973 Tie Rod Ends in the garb of Drag Link Ends without payment of duty of Rs. 283.20. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking them to show cause as to why th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing to distinguish them from each other and that in the functioning also there were no distinguishing features. He set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and held that the items were classifiable under Item 34A. Hence the revision. 4. The appellants filed a supplementary appeal No. 2666/86 for the completion of the records and the delay was hence condoned. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both the appeals they are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Shri Ranjit Singh, Proprietor of the appellants submitted that the review show cause notice did not set out any grounds by way of technical opinion or otherwise which led the Collector to differ from the Assistant Collector. He urged that there was a denia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m their appearance these two were distinct components having different sizes. Even regarding the functions she was of the view that the two components could not be changed. The threads for Tie Rod Ends were outside whereas for Drag Link Ends the threads were on the inner portion. Based on these observations she came to the conclusion that Drag Link Ends and Tie Rod Ends for Dodge Vehicles and International Tractors were distinct components which were not inter-changeable. On the contrary the Collector has stated that he wrote to the Assistant Collector and that he was informed that the samples of Tie Rod Ends for International Tractors were not available with her officer or with the party. It is, therefore, obvious that the Collector had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Trade Advice issued by the Central Board of Excise dated 6-10-1978. 8. The nomenclatures of the two items are different. One is called Tie Rod Ends and the other Drag Link Ends. The Appellate Collector has ignored this important features on the ground that nomenclature is not important. For purpose of excisability, the Trade nomenclature of the goods has a substantial bearing. The appellants have urged that these items have distinct trade names. This is another important aspect which has to be adverted to. We do not also have the benefit of the diagram which was available to the lower authorities for coming to a conclusion. We have necessarily to come to the conclusion on the basis of the records on the facts presented before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
