9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d generally be described as connecting rod bolts . 3. It is seen from the orders of the lower authorities that the respondents were paying duty on all these items as bolts, nuts and screws, falling under T.I. 52. In a letter dated 8-5-1981, to the Assistant Collector, they sought re-classification of all the 32 items under T.I. 68 as All other goods, not elsewhere specified . The Assistant Collector rejected their request and re-affirmed the existing classification under T.I. 52. Thereupon the respondents went in appeal to the Appellate Collector. Among other arguments they placed reliance on an order dated 13-3-1980 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs on an appeal filed by Messrs Ashok Leyland Ltd. In that order connecting rod bolts manufactured by Messrs Ashok Leyland were held to be classifiable under T.I. 34A as it then stood. The Appellate Collector considered that the Board s decision was a precedent to be followed. Taking into account the subsequent change in T.I. 34A (which inter alia excluded bolts from the scope of that item) he held that the 32 articles, which he described as connecting rod bolts should be classified as unspecified motor vehicle parts under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the classification of hub bolts and nuts used in motor vehicles. After a detailed discussion, the Tribunal had held that the function of the goods as fasteners was patently manifest, and had held that they were correctly classifiable under T.I. 52. Subsequently, in the case of Fit Tight Nuts Bolts Ltd. v. C.C.E., Rajkot [1985 (21) E.L.T. 717=1985 E.C.R. 1119], the Tribunal had considered the classification of hub bolts manufactured by the appellants before it. After referring to a number of decisions of the courts and the Tribunal, these hub bolts had been held as classifiable under T.I. 52. 8. Smt. Saxena then referred to the specific nature and functions of the goods under consideration in this appeal. Arrangements had been made to bring certified samples of some of the articles in dispute. Two of these were examined by the Bench. One was part No. 210 90 8520. This was said to be a connecting rod bolt meant for supply to Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune. The other sample was of part No. 210 90 6750. This was described as a con rod bolt for supply to Messrs Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Padi, Madras, 9. Smt. Saxena referred to the write-up filed by the Department and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atures such as to ensure dowelling action, close squareness of bearing surface with reference to threads, unsymmetrical head shape, manufacturing from alloy steels only, etc. These special features imparted special properties to the goods, such as uniform contact pressure between two halves (of the big end) while delivering the firing loads; good fatigue properties and taking up cyclic loading; acting as dowells in the main rod and taking up shear loads arising due to the torsional and pending loads in con rod assembly in dynamic load conditions, and so on. 14. Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that the burden of the Department s case was that if an article looked like a bolt it should be classified under item 52, without regard to its special features, such as the functions performed or why it was manufactured in a particular way. He submitted that the respondents manufactured about 3,000 types of bolts and on the vast majority of these they were paying duty under T.I. 52, since admittedly those bolts had general uses. It was only in respect of the 32 bolts under consideration that they had sought classification under T.I. 68, because these were made for special applications and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jiwan Singh Sons (1979 E.L.T. 265). In that case it had been held that seats manufactured for being fitted in buses were not steel furniture falling under item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff. 17. Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. The Associated Dental and Medical Supply Co. [1976 (37) STC 336], the Bombay High Court had held that a dental chair was not furniture within the meaning of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Again, in the case of Elpro International Ltd., the Supreme Court had held that operation tables and orthopedic and fracture tables were not steel furniture within the meaning of T.I.40. 18. In the case of Venkateswara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries (1983 E.L.T. 2217 AP) the Andhra Pradesh High Court had quoted with approval previous judicial pronouncements to the effect that in the absence of a definition in the enactment, the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. 19. Shri Chandrasekharan thereafter referred to certain decisions of the Tribunal. In the case of Sarabhai Chemicals, Baroda (1983 E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question whether the screws performed a fastening function, and had come to the conclusion that they did perform such a function of holding together at least two other articles. According to him, this would show that unless fastening was the primary function of the bolt, it would not be classifiable under T.I. 52. Finally, Shri Chandrasekharan referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Simmonds Marshal Ltd, [1985 (22) E.L.T. 378 (Bom.) = 1984 (2) E.C.C. 42]. Strong reliance on this judgment had been placed by the Tribunal in its order in the case of Fit Tight Nuts Bolts Ltd. Shri Chandrasekharan argued that Bombay High Court decision would actually be in his favour in the present case. His case was based on two arguments, namely that the fastening function of the connecting rod bolts was only incidental; and that the bolts had been specially manufactured for use as parts of a motor vehicle. In para 7 of the High Court judgment at page 49, the case of Simmonds Marshal had been distinguished from the case of Gurumukh Singh, where by implication the High Court approved the decision of the Government of India holding the goods to be motor vehicle parts. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not applicable to the present case. In the order of the Tribunal in the case of Purewal Associates Limited, it had been held that the screws in question had not been proved to have exclusive use in watches. (This does not seem correct, as we do not find such an observation in that order). 27. Finally, Smt. Saxena submitted that the appeal should be allowed and classification under T.I. 52 restored. 28. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned representatives on both sides. 29. In para 2 above, we have mentioned that somewhat different descriptions have been given to the goods involved, although both the respondents and the authorities below have treated all the articles as connecting rod bolts . We take the Annexure to the Assistant Collector s order as containing the basic list of the goods under consideration. In this list Serial Nos. 1 and 2 are described as bolt rear wheel and bolt front wheel and do not appear to the connecting rod bolts at all. A number of other items in the list are described simply as bolts . The remaining 19 items are described as con rod bolts or C.R. bolts , corresponding to the description c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass through the big end hole of the connecting rod. The two halves are fastened together with the connecting rod bolt and its nuts. The very purpose of the connecting rod bolt and the nut is only to fasten together the two halves of connecting rod big end and such connecting rod bolts are rightly classifiable as bolts under T.I. 52. No other function other than fastening can be attributed to for (sic) connecting rod bolts. 33. All the 32 items are referred to by both sides as connecting rod bolts . Even the respondents have not said that the term bolts is totally inapplicable to the goods. What they have argued is that a more appropriate term is motor vehicle parts . 34. We find from what is stated above that a prima facie case has been made out by Smt. Saxena for considering the goods in question as bolts falling under item 52. We shall, therefore, now proceed to examine the arguments advanced to the contrary by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 35. The arguments against classification of the goods under item 52 are basically the following :- (i) Though they perform a fastening function, this is not their primary but only an incidental function; (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondents cannot be heard to contend that the goods cannot possibly be regarded as bolts, since they themselves refer to them by that term, no doubt with the addition in some cases of the adjectival phrase connecting rod . The question then can only be which of the two items, namely item 52 and item 68, is more appropriate or more specific in relation to these articles. Here, the general principles of interpretation, to which reference has been made, leave no doubt. The basic principles are that if two entries are prima facie applicable, that one which is more appropriate or more specific should be preferred; and that as between a specific entry and a residuary entry, the former should prevail. The second rule has been emphatically set down in the Supreme Court judgment in the Dunlop case, to which Smt. Saxena made reference. The first one is so axiomatic as not to need any authority. If these rules are applied, the case for classification under item 52 in preference to item 68 becomes overwhelmingly strong. 39. We now come to the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. The first one was that the fastening function was only incidental and not the primary functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d inside an engine. He amplified this by adding that the connecting rod bolt would also help to maintain a film of oil. In Shri Subramaniyan s write-up, it has also been stated that big ends are deliberately cut into two parts since there is no other assembly method for con rod on crankshaft . It is clear from the above that, while the two parts have to be held together, this cannot be done by welding or rivetting. It can be done, and is done, by using the connecting rod bolts. In these circumstances, to say that the fastening function of a connecting rod bolt is only incidental to such functions as lubrication, does not carry conviction. We find it to be quite clear that the fastening function is the most important, if not the only function. 40. What are called the special features are in fact the characteristics or specifications necessary for the connecting rod bolt to perform its basic function efficiently. The respondents have enclosed several pages of extracts from engineering books, setting out the detailed calculations which have to be made in order to design a connecting rod bolt or bolted con rod connection . We are prepared to accept that very careful calculations m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition, which allows for a range of varieties and standards. It would follow that if the product of a particular manufacturer is taken into account, it may not have universal use. That, however, does not mean that it would not fall within the particular tariff item. If the arguments of the respondents were to be accepted, tyres made for particular motor vehicles might have to be excluded from item 16, internal combustion engines for particular vehicles or machines from item 29, electrical stampings for electric motors of a particular size from item 28A, and so on. We would recall in this connection the observations of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Union Carbide India Ltd. (1978 E.L.T. 1), which run as follows :- The test of general marketability does not appear sound. It would fall in a monopoly product. For such a product, the relevant entry would become nugatory. We are therefore unable to accept that because these bolts are made to particular measurements and specifications for particular uses they should not be considered as bolts within the meaning of T.I. 52. 43. Much has been said about the test of common parla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondents, as the above discussion adequately covers the points raised. The decisions relating to steel furniture do not help the respondents, because there the question was not of choosing between a specific and a residuary tariff item, but of considering whether the goods fell within a particular description. Further, each of the decisions was with reference to the facts of the particular case. In the Gurumukh Singh case the goods were U bolts and U clamps, which the Government of India held to be specially designed for use in automobiles. (Incidentally, it is not clear whether that case pertained to the period after or before 10-5-1979, when item 34A was differently worded). As regards the Simmonds Marshal case, we have already referred to it in para 40 above, to show that arguments very similar to those now advanced before us were advanced in that case, but the Hon ble Bombay High Court nevertheless held that the correct classification was T.I. 52. 46. The discussion above primarily has reference to connecting rod bolts designed for use in motor vehicles, since that is the basis on which the entire case has proceeded. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
