TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The goods were also assessed accordingly on their monthly Return in Form RT-12 from time to time. It appears that as per Tariff Advice No. 14 of 1981, dated 6-2-1981 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, a clarification was made regarding the applicability of Tariff Item No. 49 ( Rolling Bearings ) to Top Rollers, centering sleeve inserts and bearing with extrued shape . The Superintendent of Central Excise, Surendra Nagar, then for the period February 81 to 27-7-1981 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 28-7-1981 to the Appellants to show cause to Asstt. Collector, Central Excise as to why the goods be not classified under Tariff Item No. 49 and duty and additional duty at the prescribed rates amounting to ₹ 2,51,908.97 be recovered from them. The appellants submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice and also made oral submissions before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector, by his orders dated 12-1-1982, accepted the Appellants explanation and dropped the Show Cause Notice. 4. Later, Shri B.V. Kumar, Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad purporting to act under Section 35A to the Act, proposed to review the orders of the Assistant Collector dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision then stood transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it. 5. In the grounds of appeal (revision), it is urged that the Superintendent of Central Excise erred in classifying the Jockey Pulleys as bearings under Tariff Item No. 49 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). Tariff Advice No. 14/81, dated 6-2-1981 and Collectorate Trade Notice No. 63/81, dated 27-3-1981 were not applicable to Jockey Pulleys. Under Collectorate Trade Notice No. 118/75, which had not been superseded and was still operative and effective for all purposes, Jockey Pulleys could not be classified for assessment under Tariff Item 49 ; Jockey Pulleys for the purposes of Central Excise Tariff should have been classified according to their popular meaning. The appellants had produced sufficient evidence like the Purchase Order, sales invoices, affidavits from dealers and users in the trade to prove that the goods are known as Jockey Pulley in the industry and not as bearings. The Collector rejected and ignored all this evidence without assigning any reason. The orders passed by him is therefore, bad in law. The Collector committed an error in relying on I.S.I. defini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ller bearing portions in textile machinery components could be resorted to only where they come into existence as a complete whole in distinct identifiable form in the manufacture of such components. In other cases, levy of duty under Tariff Item No. 49 would not be warranted. After this Trade Notice, Jockey Pulleys were classified under Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff and assessed to duty accordingly. The duty levied earlier on Jockey Pulleys cleared by the appellants under Tariff Item No. 49 was also refunded. It was further urged that the Collector committed an error in holding Jockey Pulleys as rolling bearings under Tariff Item 49 without there being any new facts or change in process of manufacture or modification of law, or Tariff Item. The Collector committed an error in ignoring the evidence adduced by the appellants before him. Tariff Advice No. 14/81, dated 6-2-1981 and Collector of Central Excise Ahmedabad s Trade Notice No. 63/81 did not apply to Jockey Pulleys nor on their strength, Jockey Pulleys could be classified under Tariff Item No. 49 of Central Excise Tariff. In similar cases, top roller and spindle inserts, the Government of India in their Revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efinitions. 9. We have gone through the Customs and Central Excise Collectorate, Ahmedabad s Trade Notice No. 63/81 (Rolling Bearing No. 1/81) and Tariff Advice No. 14/81, dated 6-2-1981. The Trade Notice refers to question of correct classification of certain types of rolling bearings for Textile Machinery with extended shaft and then raises the question whether these fall under item No. 49 or Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, then it proceeds to give a list of 14 types of bearings. Jockey Pulleys are at No. 6 of the list. Para 2 is as follows : It is considered that top rollers and centering sleeves inserts are essentially bearings as contemplated under entry 49 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is, therefore, clarified that not only the bearing portion but the whole unit-bearing with extended shaft etc. would fall within the ambit of the aforesaid entry. Tariff Advice No. 14/81, dated 6-2-1981 reviews the classification of Top Rollers, centering sleeve inserts and bearing with extended shaft. The Advice is as follows : It is considered that top rollers and centering sleeve inserts are essentially bearings as contemplated under entry 49 of the Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariff. 11. Trade Notice No. 85/72, dated 14-8-1972 would show that, earlier, in textile machinery, only the bearing portion of the machinery components was being subjected to excise duty. Trade notice No. 118/72 dated 10-9-1975, however, modified trade notice No. 85/72. As a result of this notice, there was significant change in classifying the roller bearings portion of textile machinery components under Item No. 49 of Central Excise Tariff. The relevant portion of the trade notice is extracted below : In this connection it may be pointed that the levy of duty on the ball or roller bearing portions in the textile machinery components could be resorted to only where they come into existence as a complete whole in distinctly identifiable form in the manufacture of such components. In other cases the levy of duty under item No. 49 of the Central Excise Tariff would not be warranted. It was as a result of this notice that jockey pulleys were not classified under Item No. 49 the orders under appeal of the Collector were passed. 12. Reference may be made to certain decisions of the Government of India in similar matters in their Revisionery jurisdiction. It is seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p upon assessees. Any authority can depart from a finding arrived at in an earlier year only for cogent reasons. There should be either fresh facts or a change of law or at least a suggestion that while arriving at the conclusion of the earlier year certain material facts or provisions had not been considered and that if they had been considered a different view might have been taken. But for no reason at all there can be no departure from the view taken in an earlier year. It is not suggested that there were either fresh facts, change in law, change in process of manufacture or in the entries of the tariff. Applying the ration of above decision, it would appear that the Collector was not justified in changing the stand and holding that jockey pulleys are classifiable under Item No. 49 of the Central Excise Tariff. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Collector set-aside, and the order passed by the Assistant Collector restored. The result would be that Jockey Pulleys would be classified under Item No. 68 as done heretofore. The Department will, within two months of communication of this order make necessary adjustme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
