Supreme Court of India
Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 27 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 999, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 384, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 999, 1991 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 231, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 282, (1990) 4 JT 549 (SC), 1991 UJ(SC) 1 282, 1991 (1) SCC(SUPP) 57, (1991) 51 ELT 161, (1991) 31 ECC 221, (1991) 32 ECR 1, (1992) 84 STC 107, (1991) 5 CORLA 19
PETITIONER:
PLASMAC MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO. PVT.LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/11/1990
BENCH:
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 999 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 384
1991 SCC Supl. (1) 57 JT 1990 (4) 549
1990 SCALE (2)1149
ACT:
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944--Section 3 and First
Schedule Items Nos. 52 and 68--Tie Bar Nuts--Assessability
to duty.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant are the manufacturers of Injection Mould-
ing Machines and their 19 types of parts, one of which is
called 'Tie Bar Nuts' which are stated to be used to fix the
platens in correct distances in between tie bars. The appel-
lants submitted their classification lists for the year
1981-82 and listed the machines as also the Tie Bar Nuts
under Tariff item No. 68. The Superintendent, Central Ex-
cise, by his letter dated 20.10.81 forwarded the classifica-
tion list and directed the appellants to file a separate
classification list for the Tie Bar Nuts under tariff item
No. 52, 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 the appellants appealed to the Collector
of Central Excise (Appeal) Bombay, who, while allowing the ï7
3
Item No. 68. He took the view that the nuts in question were
not available in the market and were designed for a particu-
lar purpose for Injection Moulding Machines and could not be
used for any other purpose. Thereupon the Department pre-
ferred appeal to the Central Custom. Excise and Gold Control
Tribunal, New Delhi and contended before the Tribunal that
the sample of the product showed that it was a plain nut and
no special features were apparent and the main function of
the Tie Bar Nuts was to fasten. The Tribunal allowed the
appeal holding that the Tie Bar Nuts would merit classifica-
tion under Tariff Item No. 52. The appellants have thus
filed this appeal under section 35L of the Central Excise
and Salt Act, 1944.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: If according to law Tie Bar Nuts fall within
tariff Item 52, the fact that department earlier approved
their classification under tariff item 68 will not stop it
from revising that classification to one under item 52.
There could be no estoppel against a statute. [387F-G]
If an article is classifiable under a specific Item, it
would be
385
against the very principle of classification to deny it the
proper percentage and consign it to the residuary item.
[391D]
There is no dispute that Tie Bar Nuts conform to the
popular idea of nuts. [390H]
The 'Tie Bar Nuts' function of fixing the platens as
stated by the appellants and that of factening, as argued by
them, are not basically different, and the appellants them-
selves having called the goods as 'nuts' we are of the view
that the Tribunal is correct in classifying Tie Bar Nuts
under Tariff Item 52. There is therefore, no reason to
interfere with the department's order and no justification
for classifying those in the residuary item 68. [391C]
M/s. Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central
Excise,[1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 671: Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay
v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, [1989] 1 SCC 602;
M/s. Ujagar Prints and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1989] 3 SCC 488; Simonds Marshal Ltd. v. M.R. Baralikar,
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, [1986] 22 ELT
378; Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales
Tax, U.P., [1981] 3 SCR 294; Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of
India, [1976] 2 SCC 241; Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
v. Collector of Central Excise, [1986] 3 SCC 480; Indian ï7
3
and M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central
Excise, [1988] 2 SCC 470, Referred to.
JUDGMENT:
