9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed by the Appellate Collector on the ground of time-bar and in view of that whether they would like the Bench to consider all their three appeals. The appellants stated that they would like to argue on all the three appeals because even the Appellate Collector had rejected all their appeals on the substantive issue of classification. 2. The appellants produced samples of Throw Away Inserts as well as Tool Tips manufactured by them, explained the process of manufacture of the two articles and produced their trade catalogues in respect of them. The undisputed facts about the nature of the products are that both Tool Tips as well as Throw Away Inserts are made from carbide powder of the metals such as tungsten, molybdenum and vanadium. Both are pressed into the required shapes and then sintered (heat-treated). Both are affixed on the tool handle and perform the function of machining of metals (turning and milling etc). Thus, both are tools. So far as the differences between Tool Tips and Throw Away Inserts are concerned, the appellants gave an imposing list of 10 points of difference. The Bench asked them to show the authorities and technical literature etc. on which these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed under this Item. The classification under Item 68 continued till 17-6-1977. On 18-6-1977, description of Item 51A(iii) was amended from "Cutting tools......" to `Tools......" and from that date onwards their Inserts were classified under this Item. This practice of classification under Item 51 A (iii) continued till 28-2-1979. When they filed a fresh classification list on 1-3-1979, the Department sought to change the classification to Item 62. Between 18-6-1977 and 1-3-1979, no change had taken place in the description of the Tariff item. The character of the goods had also remained the same. The Department was, therefore, not justified in changing the earlier classification [reliance on 1983 E.L.T. 1113 CEGAT - Tata Iron & Steel Company). 4. The Department's Representative in his reply stated an under :- (1) But for the adjective 'Throw Away', both Tool Tips as well as the Inserts were carbide tips for machining of metal. The fact that the Inserts had a shorter functional life was not material. Even the Tool Tips were not permanent and their cutting edge wore out in course of time. The point that Tool Tips had one cutting edge while the Inserts had multiple c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 832.2 of 12th April, 1984) the name "Insert" alone had been used. The appellants, however, did not produce a copy of this latest Standard. 6. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants' assertion that in the absence of a statutory definition, reliance ought to be placed on trade parlance and understanding for classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff is correct as a general proposition. But when we apply it to their own specific case, we find that all that they have to show by way of evidence of trade parlance is that (1) Tool Tips and Throw Away Inserts are known by different names and that (2) there are two separate Indian Standard Specifications for them. We find that these two factors by themselves can hardly constitute adequate evidence of trade parlance. We see in every day life that practically the same thing is called by different names. Trousers and pants mean the same thing. Both napkins and disposable napkins are just two varieties of napkins. Maxis and middies are both gowns, the difference being only in their length. Plates and saucers are two different names but these two articles differ only in size. If one were asked whether saucers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983 [E.C.R. 65D (Bom.)]- The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Aggarwal & Co.] which in turn was based on the Supreme Court decisions cited therein, that while interpreting a general term used for describing any commodity in any fiscal legislation, the general term so used covers that commodity or item or article in all its forms and varieties. 7. As regards the appellants' plea that there are two sexparate Indian Standard Specifications for Tool Tips and Throw Away Inserts, we quote from our Order in the case of M/s Greaves Cotton Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1984 (15) E L.T. 226 (Tribunal)] - "Secondly, it is a well-known fact that the ISI does issue more than one specification for different sectors of the same industry or different varieties of the same goods. Therefore, the fact that there is one specification for grinding wheels generally and other for diamond wheels, would not by itself show that two are mutually exclusive, as it can well mean that diamond wheels are a species of grinding wheels." During the hearing before us, the appellants themselves displayed about half a dozen separate International Standard Organisation specifications for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision could be changed, the High Court, after citing with approval a Bombay High Court judgment on the same lines, observed as under: - "Again, in Seth Ramnath Daga v. CIT (1971 82 ITR 287), the Bombay High Court after citing certain decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court for saying that the principle of res judicata would not apply to findings of the Income-tax Tribunal also referred to Kaniram Ganpat Rai v. CIT, [1941-(9) ITR 332 Pat.] and Tejmat Bhojing v. CIT (1952 22 ITR 208 Nag.), and observed that the issue could be reopened or reconsidered if fresh facts come to light or the previous decision had not been arrived at after due enquiry." "20. The above decisions bring out clearly that whatever may be the position of a court of law or of an Appellate Tribunal it is not open to the Income-tax Authorities to change their view capriciously. An authority can depart from a finding arrived at in an earlier year only for cogent reasons. There should be either fresh facts or a changer 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 dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
