LexPUREWAL ASSOCIATES LTD. ETC. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..... PUREWAL ASSOCIATES LTD. ETC. v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE OCTOBER 1, 1996 [S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Tariff Items 52 and 68. 0 Excise duty-Watch manufacturer--Specified articles-Lid screw, barrel A B axle screw, Bridge screw and Dial key screw-Classification of-Held classifi- C able under item 68 and not under Item 52---Trade evidence adduced by manuf acture~naction of Revenue to adduce counter evidence-Schedule- Entries-lnterpretation of-Predominant test-Must be constnted in common parlance-Trade notice-Legal effect of Excise duty-Motor vehicles-Use of different kinds of connecting rod D bolts (Bolt rear wheel, bolt from wheel etc.}-Classification of-Evidence produced by Revenue and Manufacturer-Finding based thereon by Tribunal that these items were classifiable under item 52 and not under item 68-Held valid. The appellants were manufacturing watches. In the course of E manufacture of watches they inter alia, manufactured four specified articles, namely, Lid screw, Barrel axle screw, Bridge screw and Dial key screw. They claimed that these four items were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule as 'all other goods not elsewhere specified' and not under Item 52 as 'bolts, nuts and screws'. To substantiate their case they adduced evidence F from the trade by way of affidavits giving a detailed description of the functions of each of the four articles with the object of showing that they did not perform the basic function of fastening but functioned in different ways. They also relied on two trade notices issued by the Excise Collectorates of Bombay and Punjab. However, the Revenue did not take any steps to G counter the evidence produced by the appellants to the effect that the articles in question were generally understood by the trade not 'as screws but as part of watches'. Rejecting the appellant's claim the Assistant Collec- tor held that the said items fall under tariffitem 52. On appeal the Collector decided in favour of appellants holding that the specified items fall under Item 68. On further appeal by Revenµe, the Customs Excise and Gold H 117 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A (Control) Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of Collector (Appeals) and restored that of Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal by Manufacturer-as- sessee. In the connected appeal the appellants were manufacturing different kinds of connecting rod bolts (bolt rear wheel, bolt front wheel etc.) for use B in motor vehicles. Its claim for classification of these items under Tariff Item 68 was rejected by Revenue. On the basis of the evidence produced both by the Revenue and by the appellants, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Con- trol) Appellate Tribunal held that thea.'ery purpose of connecting rod bolt and the nut was only to fasten together the two halves of connecting rod big C end and therefore such connectitng rod bolts were classifiable as bolts under Tariff Item 52. Against the decision of Tribunal the manufacturer preferred appeal before this Court. D l Disposing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The articles in question, namely, Lid screw, Barrel axle screw, Bridge screw and the Dial key screw cannot be called 'Screws' as generally understood both in common parlance as well as in trade notice. These articles did not not fall within Item 52 of the Tariff Items and there being no specific Entry, they fall under Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal has E misdirected itself while reaching its conclusion. It having rightly taken note of the test laid down by this Court in several decisions that while interpret- ing the entries in the Schedule, they must be construed as understood in common parlance and words used by legislature must be given their popular sense, failed to pursue the same test in the light of the evidence F tendered by the appellants right from the beginning. [125-D; 124-B; 121-G-H; 122-A] 2. Before issuing a Trade Notice sufficient care is taken by the authorities concerned as it guides the traders to regulate their business accordingly, Though a trade notice as such is not binding on the Tribunal or the Courts, it cannot be ignored when the authorities take a different G stand for if it was erroneous, it would have been withdrawn. Trade Notice 127171 dated 5. 7 .1971 states that mere existence of threads would not render an article as a bolt, nut or screw if it is recognis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.