HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the orders of the lower authorities by which they have revised the classification of two items manufactured by the appellants. These are:

(2.) WHILE the first part is used in loaders, the second is used 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 S1. No. 9190675 and (ii) Nut King Pin Thrust Bearing S1. No. 9110046 falling under Tariff Item 52 - rate of duty 15% ad valorem - as Tariff Item 68 goods and adoption of central excise duty @ 8% ad valorem". The appellants submitted in the reply that as per Bombay Trade Notice No. 127/71 dated 5 -7 -1971, 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. It was also submitted in the reply that although the parts were called as Nut Bearing Lock and Nut King Pin Thrust Bearing, they are not classifiable as nuts and bolts because they are not known in the market as nuts and bolts. They arc known as only parts of their respective products i.e. Nut Bearing Lock is known as Part No. 9190675 of Spindles of Front End Loaders and Nut King Pin Thrust Bearing is known as Part No. 9110046 of spindles used in R25 off -the -Highway Rear Dumper. The Assistant Collector held that the function of the two parts was primarily as Fasteners and therefore they were correctly classifiable under Item 52. When the matter went up in appeal, Collector (Appeals) recorded the following order in para 3, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: -

(3.) ALTHOUGH the appeal also related to the classification of pistons etc. this matter was not pressed during the hearing.