PLASMAC MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 27,1990

PLASMAC MACHINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SWASTIC RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1995-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1991-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
J G BAVISHI AND SONS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1991-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR TILES CO VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1991-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
GURUPRIYA TELE AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(KAR)-1991-8-28] [FOLLOWED ON]
NAFFAR CHANDRA JUTE MILLS LTD VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CAL)-1993-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1991-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
PROMINENT CEMENT PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1992-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
CRANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
ECO VALLEY FARMS AND FOODS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
MADHULIKA SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-254] [REFERRED TO]
MICROFX VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
MICROFX VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-9-283] [REFERRED TO]
AMI PIGMENTS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THR SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2010-2-366] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN TOOL MANUFACTURERS VS. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE NASIK [LAWS(SC)-1994-9-121] [CONSIDERED]
BAKELITE HYLAM LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD [LAWS(SC)-1998-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA TAXFABS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-372] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. (APPEALS), MANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2008-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA 3M LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2005-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-1991-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
KINJAL ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2002-3-145] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SATIA PAPER MILLS [LAWS(CE)-2004-2-361] [REFERRED TO]
RALLIS INDIA LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-1999-8-309] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI VS. GLOBAL HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2018-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
INSECTICIDES (INDIA) LIMITED VS. PARIJAT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III VS. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
TVL TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS JOINT VENTURE, VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-756] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. N. Saikia, J. - (1.)The appellants M/ s.Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt Ltd., Bombay are manufacturing of Injection Moulding Machines of four categories and the same were classified under tariff ItemNo. 68. For these machines they manufacture approximately 19 parts, one of which is called "Tie Bar Nuts" which are the subject matter of this appeal. The Tie Bar Nuts are manufactured from 2 3/4" hexagonal M. S. Bar having special threads known as 'acmethreads'. The Tie Bar Nuts are stated to be components of Injection Moulding Machines (tailormade) and are used to fix the platens incorrect distances in between tie bars.
(2.)The appellants submitted their classfication list for the year 1981-82 for 84 gms. '56 gms., and 70 gms., semi-automatic and fully automatic "Plasmac" Injection Moulding Machines under tariff Item 68 along with enclosure of 19 parts manufactured and used in the said machines. In these 19 parts Tie Bar Nuts were shown against Srl. No. 16. However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified and approved the said Tie Bar Nuts under tariff Item 52 and not under 68. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-I vide his letter dated 20-10-1981 forwarded the classification list and directed the appellants to file a separate classification list for the Tie Bar Nuts under tariff Item 52 and take out licence for the same and also to furnish value and clearance of Tie Bar Nuts for the year 1980-81 and 1981-82. Aggrieved at this classification the appellants appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal) Bombay who, while allowing the appeal, ordered that Tie Bar Nuts be classified under tariff Item 68 on the ground that Tie Bar Nuts were not available in the market and were designed for a particular purpose i.e. for Injection Moulding Machines, and those could not be used for any other purpose. The department appealed therefrom to the Central Custom, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Before the Tribunal the department, inter alia, contended that the sample of the product showed that it was a plain nut and no special features were apparent, and that the main function of the Tie Bar Nuts would be of fastening, and other functions, if any, would be secondary. It was contended by the appellants that the Tie Bar Nuts were used in course of the continuous process of manufacture of the machines and formed its integral part, being specifically made for use' in the machines; and that Tie Bar Nuts were neither available nor saleable in the market, their only function being to fix the platens in correct distances between Tie Bars.
(3.)The Appellate Tribunal held that from the evidence on record, it is found that according to the appellants themselves the Tie Bar Nuts in question have the function of fastening for the machine and, therefore, the contention that the main function of Tie Bar Nuts is not to fasten any part but . to adjust the distance between two platens does not change the complex of the case, and that there is no doubt that the Tie Bar Nuts would merit classification under tariff Item 52. The department's appeal having thus been allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, the appellants have preferred this appeal under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.