http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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: