TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied as held by the Collector (Appeals). 3. Appearing before us for the appellant Collector, Shri K.D. Tayal drew our attention to samples of the four articles under consideration, known as barrel axle screw, bridge screw, dial key screw and lid screw. He pointed out that each of these articles was in the shape of screw, with a head and a shank with a thread. No doubt they were very small in size, since they had to be used in watches. However, this was not material, as Item 52 covered screws irrespective of their sizes. 4. Shri Tayal further argued that the articles were not only screws within the meaning of the Central Excise Tariff Item but were also known in the trade as screws. The respondents themselves called these articles as screws, as would be evident from para 3 above. In this connection he cited the decision of the Supreme, Court in the case of Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP, reported in 1981 E.L.T. 325. In that judgment reference had been made to the importance of popular and commercial parlance when interpreting a commodity schedule (in that case it was with reference to sales tax, but the same principle applied). 5. Shri Taya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er parts and components had distinctly clear functions required for the operation of the entire machine. It was also observed that the articles were not commercially available in the market and were not known in the trade as bolts, nuts and screws. Shri Tayal submitted that the decision of the Appellate Collector in that case had been taken on the basis of the end-use of the articles in question. Shri Tayal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd., (supra), wherein it had been observed that where a Tariff entry does not contain a reference to the use or adaptation of the article, the end-use of the article is not relevant. In the present case, the goods were clearly screws and the fact that their end-use was in watches would not affect their classification. In any event, the two decisions of the Tribunal which he had referred to were more recent and should be followed. 8. Asked by the Bench whether the articles in question had any function other than that of fastening, Shri Tayal replied that this was a technical question on which he could not speak as an expert. However, he drew our attention to ground No. (iii) of the memorandum of appeal, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Mathur asserted that they were nevertheless to be considered as parts for wrist watches . 13. Shri Mathur thereafter referred to a trade notice No. 117/79, dated 28-12-1979 of the Chandigarh Central Excise, Collectorate which, according to him, stated that watch parts would fall under Item 68. He did not file a copy of this trade notice. In any case the Bench pointed out to him that the notice would not greatly help his case. In the first instance, any such explanation by the executive authorities cannot have statutory value. Secondly, the trade notice does not refer to screws which are watch parts but only watch parts in general. Watch parts which are not more specifically covered by another Item of the Tariff would obviously fall under the residuary Item No. 68. 14. Shri Mathur also filed a copy of a trade notice No. 127/71, dated 5-7-1971, which reads as under :- Mere existence of threads would not render an article as a bolt, nut or screw if it 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 . He submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the head of the screw and the bottom plate. Although this is what the diagram showed, Shri Harpreet Singh stated that in practice there was a separation of a few microns (a micron being equal to a thousandth of a millimeter) between the head of the screw and the surface of the lid. According to him, the head of the screw would not normally touch the lid, but if the lid started to work itself loose it would come in contact with the head of the screw and be held back. 19. The dial key screw serves to keep the dial in position. It also has the shape of a screw, except that the head, instead of being a perfect circle, has one segment sliced off, so that its shape is something like a D . It is screwed into the dial. When in position, the flat side of the head of the screw presses against a lug like a pin, which passes through the dial from below. The pressure of the head of the screw on the lug prevents the dial from coming loose. 20. Based on these detailed explanations, Shri Mathur submitted that none of the screws was a fastener, as none of them was in contact with two other things which it was holding together. Further, as for example in the case of the dial key screw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the goods in question, were not classifiable as screws and that the appeal should be rejected. 26. Replying to Shri Mathur, Shri Tayal submitted that the detailed descriptions given of the functions of the various screws were all related to their end-use, which as held by the Supreme Court was not relevant when the Tariff entry did not specify end-use. Referring to the emphasis placed by the respondents that the screws must be fasteners or must perform a fastening function, Shri Tayal submitted that the Tariff entry did not refer to fasteners, but specified bolts, nuts and screws. It would not, therefore, be correct to equate screws with fasteners and go by the meaning given to the latter term. 27. Shri Tayal further submitted that even if the fastening function was important, the parts in question did perform that function. Two of them, namely the dial key screw and the lid screw, were obviously used for holding two parts together, and were in contact with both the parts. The other two screws might not actually touch two parts, but there was no doubt that they were also necessary for holding two or more parts together. Shri Tayal stressed that it was not necessary th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal and by the Collector (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal. They have, however, come to contrary conclusions. Shri Mathur urged that the Collector (Appeals) had applied his mind to these functions and had been satisfied that the screws did not perform any fastening function, and he invited us to take the same view. We accordingly went into the functions of each of these screws with the help of diagrams and samples produced by Shri Harpreet Singh and explanations given by him. Our observations are given below. 31. We have attempted in paras 16 to 21 supra to give as clear a description as is possible without diagrams or photographs of the four articles under consideration, in the context of Shri Mathur s arguments that they are not used for fastening and are therefore not screws. We shall now examine this argument in the light of the description of the articles as well as the points made by both sides. 32. We have already pointed out that if the goods can be said to be covered by the description of Item 52, they cannot be relegated to Item 68. The relevant term in Item 52 is screws . The Explanation to that item amplifies this by including such articles as screw studs, scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on would involve ignoring the obvious fact that a bolt or screw in the ordinary sense can well be used as a component part of an instrument, apparatus, etc. Thus Shri Mathur s argument that merely because the screws Iin question are shown to be used as component parts of watches they are taken out of the purview of Item 52 is, in our opinion, misconceived. 35. 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 9 specific articles as not falling within the scope of Item 52. We would merely observe that the Appellate Collector had in the case of each of those articles gone into its description as well as its function and held that they were not bolts and screws within the meaning of Item 52. Many of them were massive articles, weighing from 21 to 56 kgs. each, and one could say even at first sight that such articles would hardly be known in the market as bolts or screws. That case illustrates the type of extreme case where an article, although loosely described as a bolt or screw, cannot in fact be regarded as a bolt or screw as commonly understood. That, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearances fastens the lid on to the main plate, we were told that there was a small gap between the shank and the hole in the lid. 39. In the case of the dial key screw, there is no doubt that it touches both the dial as well as the lug which is attahced to the bottom plate, but it is contended that because the dial is in contact with the stem of the screw, while the lug is in contact with its head, it cannot be said to fasten two things. Finally, in the case of the barrel axle screw, it is contended that while the stem of the screw is in contact with the lid, the head does not normally touch the axle, but only when the axle tends to become loose or works its way up - when no doubt it will come in contact with the head of the screw and be held back. 40. It is clear from what we have seen and what has been explained to us that all these screws have the function of holding together two or more parts of the watch assembly. In some cases there is said to be a very minute gap between the screw and one of the two parts. In other cases, it is argued that the function is performed not only by the stem but also by the head of the screw. We consider that it would be unrealistic to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a separation of a few thousandth of a millimetre, it would certainly be a case of undue refinement which would be far from practicable, and we think it would not be reasonable to interpret the Tariff in such a manner. 41. Having regard, therefore, to the facts that - (a) Item 52 of the Tariff specifically refers to screws ; (b) the term used is screws and not fasteners ; (c) the articles in question clearly have the appearance of screws; (d) they are described both by the manufacturers and by the Indian Standards Institution as screws; and (e) they do perform in different ways the function of holding in place two or more parts of the watch assembly, we consider that the Assistant Collector was right in holding that they were classifiable under Item 52, and that the learned Collector (Appeals) fell into error in holding otherwise. 42. As mentioned in para 9 above, Shri Tayal had fairly pointed out that in case we hold the goods as covered by Item 52, the question whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the exemption in Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 or No. 80/80, dated 19-6-1980 might have to be determined by the lower authorities. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
