Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (11) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed in dumpers. Their classification was initially approved under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff but the authorities sought to classify them under Item 52 as Bolts, Nuts and Screws by issuing a show cause notice on 26-7-1980 under erstwhile Rule 10A read with Rule 173PP of the Central Excise Rules and demanding duty of Rs. 32,049.70 for the period 1-4-1979 to 30-6-1980 on the ground that the classification of the two products under Item 68 was wrongly made. The show cause notice was issued by the Inspector of Central Excise for showing cause to the Assistant Collector why the duty short levied due to wrong classification of Nuts - (i) Nut Bearing Lock Sl. No. 9190675 and (ii) Nut King Pin Thrust Bearing Sl. No. 9110046 fall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... astening is the secondary function and that they are identifiable and essential components of motor vehicles, to warrant classification under T.I. 68. The description of excisable goods against Entry No. 52 of the Central Excise Tariff coupled with the explanation against the said Entry is so comprehensive, as to bring within its ambit all kinds of bolts, nuts and screws, irrespective of their use subsequent to manufacture or their placement in any machine or instrument by the buyer. Consequently, I see no merit in their appeal in respect of this issue. In the appeal before us, the points taken mainly are that the two parts are known by their respective product numbers and are manufactured particularly with regard to a specific specifica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nal in the case of Central India Machinery Company v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (39) E.L.T. 306] in which it was held that bogie centre pivot bolt ( pin ) known as pivot bolt was classifiable under Item 68 and not under 52 since there was no rigid fastening of the wheel assembly/bogie with the under-frame or chassis of the wagon by the pivot bolt. 5. Shri Kumar also submitted that the proceedings in this case under Rule 10A could not have been continued after the repeal of the Rule itself. 6. Shri J.N. Nair, the learned JDR, contested the claim of the appellants that the parts in question were not nuts and submitted that the write-up as well as the photograph of the parts showed that they were essentially nuts. In common parlanc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e nut only serves to improve the fastening quality. It is meant for universal application. It is merely an improved variety of nut, which is basically a fastener having special property of holding fast." 8. ............................. On a comprehensive consideration of the material before us, there is no escape from the conclusion that Nyloc Nut is a nut, though it could be described as an improvised or a special type of nut. It will make no difference whether it is readily available in the ordinary hardware market or is available in automobile shops, or is costlier than an ordinary iron nut. It is quite clear that if this nut could not be used basically as a fastener, then all other additional advantages will have no meaning." 7. Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ck, but they also perform the function of fastening which would essentially take them to Item 52. Moreover, the appellants themselves have called the goods Nut Bearing Lock and Nut King Pin Thrust Bearing . This being so and, in view of the ratio of the various decisions cited by the learned JDR before us, we are of the considered view that the classification of these parts should correctly be made under Item 52. 10. As regards the plea that demand under Rule 10A was not sustainable because Rule 10A was deleted on 6-8-1977 by Notification 267/77-C.E., we observe that when Rule 10A was deleted, its provisions were incorporated in a modified form in amended Rule 10 which simultaneously came into force. We also note that Collector (Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates