9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 1-10-1996 - S.P. Bharucha and K. Venkataswami, JJ. [Judgment per : Venkataswami, J.]. - In these two appeals a common question, to put it broadly, namely, whether the articles manufactured by the respective appellants fall under Tariff Item 52 (Specific Entry) as claimed by the Revenue or under Tariff Item 68 (Residuary Item) of Central Excise Tariff arises for our consideration. We may at once point out that the articles manufactured by the respective appellants are totally different and the decision, therefore, rests upon the kind of articles manufactured by the respective appellants. We, therefore, propose to deal with the facts separately and give our decision thereon. 2.In the first case, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2800/84 the appellants are manufacturers of watches. In the course of manufacture of watches, the appellants inter alia manufactured four specified articles with which we are concerned, namely, Lid screw, Barrel axle screw, Bridge screw and the Dial key screw. The controversy between the Revenue and the appellants with regard to these four articles was whether these four specified items are classifiable under Item 52 of the Schedule as `bolts, nuts and sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lds Limited, Bilaspur case which was accepted by the Revenue was pressed into service before the Tribunal and the Tribunal while accepting the view distinguished on facts without appreciating that in principle the case cannot be distinguished. He also submitted that the Revenue notwithstanding the fact that the Collector (Appeals) has taken note of the affidavits filed by the appellants, has not taken any steps to counter the evidence produced by the appellants to the effect that the articles in question are generally understood by the trade not `as screws but as part of watches'. The Revenue could have, if so desired, called the deponents of the affidavits for subjecting them to cross-examination. In the circumstances, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the case put forward by the appellants supported by the evidence ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal as done by the Collector (Appeals). 5.Contending contrary, Shri P.A. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue after referring to the order of the Tribunal, in particular Paragraphs 24, 35, 37 and 38 to 40 submitted that unless the Tribunal's order is found to be perverse or arbitrary, this Court ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Dunlop India Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (SC) = 1976 (2) SCC 241 have settled this proposition. How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product is also a test when the statute itself does not contain any definition and commercial parlance would assume importance when the goods are marketable as was held in Anil Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473 (SC) = (1986 (3) SCC 480 and Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (SC) = 1985 (3) SCC 284. In M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 3 (SC) = 1988 (2) SCC 470 which was a Emulsion paint, at para 8 it was said :- "It is well settled that the commercial meaning has to be given to the expression in tariff items : where definition of a word has not been given, it must be construed in its popular sense. Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it." 7.It is common ground that the Revenue even at the Tribunal stage has not taken the trouble of countering the evidence in the shape o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is recognisable as component part of an instrument, apparatus, appliance or machine. The tariff definition of Item 52 is intended to cover only those which are known as bolt, nuts and screws in the market." 9.We must take it that before issuing a Trade Notice sufficient care is taken by the authorities concerned as it guides the traders to regulate their business accordingly. Hence whatever is the legal effect of the trade notice as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the last portion of the above trade notice cannot be faulted as it is in accordance with the views expressed by this Court. Though a trade notice as such is not binding on the Tribunal or the Courts, it cannot be ignored when the authorities take a different stand for if it was erroneous, it would have been withdrawn. 10.We would also like to extract a portion from the Tribunal's order with reference to an order of the Collector (Appeals) in Western Coalfields Limited case dated 8-5-1978. It reads as follows :- "This does not mean that we disagree with the finding in the Order dated 8-5-1978 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, cited by Shri Mathur, in which he had held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve paid the duty, they will be entitled to refund with interest @ 12% per annum as observed by this Court. 15.Now we come to Civil Appeal No. 2307/86. In this case, we are concerned with 32 articles of different kinds of connecting rod bolts (bolt rear wheel, bolt front wheel, etc). It appears that the appellants were paying duty on all varieties of bolts, nuts and screws manufactured by them falling under Tariff Item 52. While doing so, by letter dated 8-5-1981, they sought classification of all these Items under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Collector rejected the request and reaffirmed the existing classification under T.I. 52. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) found that the articles in question should be classified under Tariff Item 68. The Revenue aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Appeals) preferred further appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (herein- after called "the Tribunal"). Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has placed a write-up on the functions of connection rod bolts. Photocopies of material from technical publications have also been placed before the Tribunal. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the two representative samples of "connecting rod bolts" shown to us at the hearing. Part No. 210 90 6750, which is stated to be for supply to Sundaram Clayton Ltd., less in the conventional shape of a bolt, though we have no reason to doubt that it was made to order. Part No. 210 90 820, which is described as for supply to Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune, seems to be specifically made with reference to its fitment in a particular machine. However, apart from our conclusion that this by itself would not take it outside the scope of II 2, it will be seen that if it is for use in a stationary diesel engine, the arguments with reference to a connecting rod bolt being termed a motor vehicle part would become inapplicable to this article. In regard to the rear wheel bolts, the basic arguments advanced by the respondents would have no application, and prima facie these would appear to be covered by the Tribunal's decisions on hum bolts. While we have taken note of these distinctions, our decision in the present appeal is with reference to arguments based on connecting rod bolts for motor vehicles." 17.In fairness to the Tribunal (incidentally the same combination) we must point out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
