Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri - (1.) THIS bunch of appeals raises a common question of classification of certain goods (thirty two items), which will be referred to presently, manufactured by the assessee-appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 4598-4612 of 1994 (the first set of appeals) which are directed against the final judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the C.E.G.A.T.') in Appeal Nos. E-5455-5469/92-D dated November 22, 1993 and the order in Rectification Application No. E/41/93-D passed on March 3, 1994. The second set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 5701-5705 of 2001, filed by the Revenue, is from final judgment and order in Appeal Nos. E-289-293/1988-D dated January 9, 2001. All these twenty appeals relate to the Assessment Years 1979 to 1986, albeit, for different periods, Civil Appeal No. 5711 of 1999 is filed by the Revenue, dissatisfied by the final judgment and order of the C.E.G.A.T. in Final Order No. 351/99-B in Appeal No. E/2483/1992-B passed on April 6, 1999 and it relates to the Assessment year 1986-87.
(2.) IN the order impugned in the first set of appeals, the Tribunal applied the functional test and classified those thirty two items, manufactured by the assessee, under Tariff Item 52 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The classification was based on the finding recorded by the Tribunal, after referring to the findings in the identical case of M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [Tribunal's Order No. E/333/93-D dated 6th October, 1993 Appeal No. E/882/85-D]. The finding reads as follows: "....the Tribunal had clearly held that goods, even though used as component parts of motor vehicles having a fastening function primarily, are to be classified under Item 52 C.E.T" (Emphasis supplied) Two points may be noted in this finding. (1) the goods in question are component parts of motor vehicles; and (2) the function of those goods is the fastening of parts. For the same assessment years but for a different period, the Tribunal, in its order dated January 9, 2001 (subject-matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 5701-5705 of 2001), approved the following findings recorded by the Collector (Appeals) with regard to the same goods: "1 observe that these are specially designed parts for use in automobile vehicles, sold in unit and as per part numbers of the original vehicle manufacturers. They are not inter-changeable and can be marketed only by auto-vehicle part dealers. Each and every part in question has code number, vehicle in which they can be used, their nomenclature, description marking and part number. On careful examination of these samples, I find that some of the items are not even threaded. They are suitable for use only in different motor vehicles according to their specifications. As per the sample and catalogue, by no stretch of imagination these items in question can be termed as general type of fasteners." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) REFERRING to the test applied by this Court in Purewal Associates Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise (87 E.L.T. 321), the Tribunal held: "No one uses these parts as general parts of bolts and nuts. Some parts are such that they can, if one wants, be used as a general purpose bolt or nut. This type of stray use of which they may be put can not take them out of the category of parts of Automobile. The materials now made available namely the catalogue, affidavits given by dealers in automobile parts and the communications received from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, M/s. Daewoo Motors show that these goods manufactured are specialised parts required for automobiles. These parts are manufactured at the instance of automobile manufacturers and they procure it as original equipment or replacement parts. No iota of evidence is forthcoming from the Revenue to show that these parts are ever made available in the market as bolt and nuts or that they are in common use as bolts and nuts as understood in ordinary or common parlance." On those findings of fact, it was held that the goods in question did not fall under Tariff Item 52 and, being virtually parts of automobile, were classifiable under Tariff Item 68.;