PLASMAC MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO. PVT.LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 27-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PLASMAC MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO. PVT.LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1990 
[K. N. SAIKIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944--Section 3 and First Schedule 
Jtems Nos. 52 and 68-Tie Bar Nuts-Assessability to duty. 
The appellant are the manufacturers of Injection Moulding 
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 correst distances 
in between tie bars. The appellants 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 Excise, by his 
letter dated 20.10.81 forwarded the classification list and directed the 
D 
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 appeal, ordered that Tie Bar 
Nuts be classified under Tariff Item No. 68. He took the view that the 
E 
nuts in question were not available in the market and were designed for 
a particular purpose for Injection Moulding Machines and could not be 
used for any other purpose. Thereupon the~Department preferred 
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 
F 
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. 
G 
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 estop it from revising that classification to one 
under item 52. There could be no estoppel against a statute. [387F-G] 
H 
If an article is classifiable under a specific item, it would be 
384 
• 
PLASMAC MACHINE MFG. CO. v. C.C.E. [SAIKIA, J.l 
385 
ag11lnst the very prindple of classification to deny it the proper 
percentage and consign it to the residuary item. [391D I 
There Is no dispute that T~ Bar Nuts conform to Ute popular idea 
of nuts. (39Qa) 
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, ancl the appellants themselves having called the goocls as 
'nuts' we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in classifying Tie 
B11r Nuts uncler Tariff Item 52. There is therefore, no reason to 
interfere with the department's order and no justification for classify-
ing tbllSe In the residuary item 68. [391C) 
M/s. Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 
A 
B 
c 
( 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, 
D 
(19116] 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 Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. 
Union of India, [1985) 3 SCC 284 and M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. 
Collector of Central Excise, [1988] 2 SCC 470, Referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1036 
(NM) of 1990. 
From the Order dated 8.8. 1989 of the Customs Excise and Gold 
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal E/A. No. 845 of 
F 
1984-0. (Order No. 241/89-D. 
J.F. Pochkanawalla, Raian Karanjawala, Manish Karanjawala. 
Mrs. Nandini Gore and Mrs. Manik Karanbjawala for the apppellants. 
N.S. Hegde, Additional Solicitor General and A .. Subba Rao for 
the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
K.N .SAIKIA, J. The 
appellants 
Mis 
Plasmac 
Machine 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R 
Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd .• Bombay are manufacturers of Injection 
Moulding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.