9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter called the respondents filed classification list effective from 1-4-1983 claiming steel gate hooks & Eyes of different varieties, M hooks, B Eyes and various hooks at Sr. No. 1 to 29 of the above classification list as falling under T.I. 68. 3. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nasik observed that the same items under dispute are not classifiable under T.I. 68 and they are correctly classifiable under T.I. 52 on the ground that these items are covered by the explanatory note to the Tariff entry. Explanation to Tariff Item No. 52 makes it; abundantly clear that it does not only include nuts, bolts and screws but includes all hardware items which are described therein and that tariff does not provide any scope for interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CET stands settled by various Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court decisions in the case of Plasmac Machine Manufacturing v. CCE - reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 161 (SC) = 1991 (32) ECR 1 (SC), Jaishree Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 214 (SC) = 1989 (21) ECR 177 (SC), the Tribunal decisions in the case of CCE v. Elecon Engineering - reported in 1992 (38) ECR 340 (CEGAT Special Bench-D) and Order No. E/341/91-D, dated 31-7-1991 in the case of CCE v. MM Industries were ; cited and it was urged that the goods considered in the last named CEGAT decision were identical. Therefore, classification of the goods was correctly done under Item 52 CET and the order of Collector (Appeals) c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The expression 'Bolts and nuts, threaded or tapped and screws' used in this item shall include bolt ends, screw studs, screw studding, self-tapped screws, screw hooks and screw rings." The goods in the present case are described as M hooks, B Eyes and various hooks as per their classification list. The Asstt. Collector in his Order dated 22-11-1983 in para three thereof has described the function of the products as explained by the respondents, which is as follows : "Shri A.R. Mehta, power of attorney holder appeared for hearing. He gave the detailed submissions alongwith samples with demonstration making it clear that there is no fastening involved in any of these items and requested to consider the case. In their written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and eyes of the similar type. The Tribunal in that case had considered the Supreme Court decision in the Plosmoc Machine Manufacturing Co. case and that of Jaishree Engineering of the Supreme Court (supra) and had noted the Court's observation in Plasmac case. From the above shades of meaning ('fasten' and 'fix') we do not find such a difference between the functions of 'fastening' and 'fixing' in respect of a 'nut' so as to justify classification of tie bar nuts differently from other nuts on the basis of its function". In the Elecon Engineering case decided by the Tribunal (supra), also the above two Supreme Court decisions have been followed and it was held that the finding of a fact cannot be reversed by appellate authority without fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
