TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged on the seized goods under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules for contravention of Rule 174 ibid. Following the guidelines laid down in the Instruction No. 64/CE/77 (I-Nut Bolts), dated 2-3-1977 issued by the Collectorate of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that the goods manufactured by the appellants were covered under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. He confiscated the seized goods with a redemption fine of Rs. 1,500/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 100/- on the appellants under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in addition to demanding Central Excise duty on the goods under Rule 9(2). 3. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. After examining the case records and a sample of axle stud supplied by the appellants and also considering the submissions of the appellants, the Appellate Collector observed that the axle stud had a screw arrangement on both the sides and the same is used for fastening in the automobile vehicles. He also observed that according to the Explanation to Central Excise Tariff Item No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f treatment to some manufacturers as against others in the same section of the industry ; (iii) it is an established principle of Tariff classification that an item which provides the most specific description shall have precedence over the item providing a more general description. 5. During personal hearing before us, the learned Advocate for the appellants reiterated the above contentions and said that the Government of India s order was binding on the Appellate Collector and he should have held the goods falling under Tariff Item 34A. He also emphasised the point that the goods manufactured by the appellants were motor vehicle parts and were understood as such in the common trade parlance. The goods were required to be classified on the basis of the popular sense in which they were understood in the trade. He cited the judicial pronouncements in the following cases in support of his contention :- (i) State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. [A.I.R. 1977 (SC) 132] ; (ii) Purushottam Gokuldas Plywood Co. v. Union of India and Others [1983 E.L.T. 1677 (Kerala)]; (iii) Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1982 E.L.T. 237 (Bombay)]; (iv) Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. It has been mentioned in the statement that the nuts were purchased from outside as finished products. The statement shows, inter alia, part No., names of the motor vehicles, application/functional utility and the names of the customers. We have considered these details, but we find that in the absence of any reference to end use in the Tariff, these will not help the appellants in this case. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and have also gone through the records. The first contention of the appellants is that the Assistant Collector did not apply his mind in this case and his order was based entirely on the Trade Notice and that on this ground alone, his order and also the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector are to be set aside. While we agree with the appellants that a quasi judicial authority should apply his independent mind to the case before him and arrive at his own judicious decision, we are to observe that the Assistant Collector s reference to the Trade Notice would not vitiate the appellate order as the Appellate Collector applied his mind to the case and passed the order-in-appeal after going through the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses does not affect this position. 12. This Tribunal has decided a number of similar cases, whose ratio is applicable to the present case. We may refer to the following cases : (i) M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (1983 E.L.T. 2067 and 1984 ECR 1266) ; (ii) M/s. Fit Tight Nuts and Bolts Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot [1985; (21) E.L.T. 717 (Tribunal) and 1985 ECR-1119 (CEGAT)] (iii) Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Purewal and Associates Ltd., [1985 ECR 1032 (CEGAT)]; and (iv) Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Sundram Fasteners Limited, Padi, Madras [CEGAT s Order No. 261/1985-D, dated 2-8-1985 in Appeal No. ED (SB) 816/83-D]. (i) In the case of M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport Limited, 1983 E.L.T. 2067, the question for consideration was whether Hub bolts and nuts used in motor vehicles should be classified as bolts and nuts under Item 52 of the Tariff or as goods not elsewhere specified under Item 68. Although those hub bolts and nuts were made specially for motor vehicles and they were available only at the shops of automobile dealers and no hardware shop would stock them, it was decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Tariff Item 52 specifically referred to Screws , there was no reference to the end use in the Tariff Item, the articles in question had the appearance of screws, they performed the function of holding in place two or more parts of the watch assembly, the Tribunal held that the articles would be classifiable under Item 52 of the Tariff. (iv) In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., the Tribunal decided that connecting rod bolts, which were used as motor vehicle parts, were classifiable under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. 13. The case of Simmonds Marshal Limited related to the classification of Nyloc Self-locking Nuts pertaining to a period prior to 10-5-1979. The following relevant facts were considered in that case : (i) the nuts were manufactured as per specifications, they were not general fasteners, but had specific functional utility and their cost was 3 to 4 times the cost of ordinary nuts ; (ii) the nuts were used as motor vehicle parts, they were ordinarily stocked in auto spare parts shops and were not available in the hardware market; (iii) evidence of special engineering features was produced and admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular entry, and no undue stress can be laid on any isolated function or quality. 14. The Hon ble High Court also rejected the argument that the goods were not available in the ordinary hardware market and observed that it would make no difference whether it was readily available in the Ordinary hardware market or was available only in automobile shop. The argument of hostile discrimination against the appellants vis-a-vis M/s. Gurmukh Singh and Sons was also rejected by the High Court. It was observed that the said case was decided on its own facts and no general rule of law was laid down in that behalf and that a decision on classification must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. The arguments advanced in the present case before us regarding special features and functional utility are similar to those dealt with in the cases decided by this Tribunal and in the case of Simmonds Marshal Limited, decided by Bombay High Court, and the decision was that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 52 and not under Item 34-A. We find no reason to have a different line now. 16. The fact that the studs are used in the motor vehicles is also not material in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
