2003 INSC 0035 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA G.S. Auto International Limited Versus Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 15.1.2003 (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Ashok Bhan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4598-4612 of 1994 with Civil Appeal Nos. 5711 of 1999 and 5701- 5705 of 2001. JUDGMENT Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. -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 Ms. Hindustan Motors Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [Tribunal's Order No. E/333/93-D dated 6th October, 1993 in 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. 3. 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 : "I 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) 4. Referring to the test applied by this Court in Purewal Associates Limited v. 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 cannot 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." 5. 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. 6. On the basis of similar findings and following the principle laid down in Purewal Associates Limited (supra), the Tribunal [in the order in question in Civil Appeal No. 5711 of 1999], having regard to the change of scheme of classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 held, for the Assessment Year 1986-87, that the said goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 87.07 and not under Chapter Heading 73.18, as contended by the Revenue. 7. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, contends that inasmuch as the test laid down in Purewal Associates Limited (supra), namely, the test of commercial identity, was not available to the Tribunal when it passed the order, now subject-matter of the first set of appeals, it erred in applying the functional test and holding that the goods in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 52, as it existed prior to the commencement of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. He submits that after having the benefit of the law laid down by this Court in Purewal Associates Limited (supra), the Tribunal applied the correct test of commercial identity in its orders, which are subject-matter of the second set of appeals and the third appeal, which deserve to be upheld. 8. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, vehemently contends that in regard to pre-1986 period, both the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the function of the goods would show that they are nothing but nuts and bolts classificable under Tariff Item 52; in regard to the classification under post-1986 period, she invited our attention to Notes 2(b) and (3) of Section XVII read with Note 2(a) of Section XV to show that Chapter Heading 73.18 takes in screws, bolts, nuts, etc. and that the expressions "parts" and "parts and accessories" have been defined in Section XVII, Note 2(b). Inasmuch as Note (2) to Section XV takes away the goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.02, therefore, the goods in question have to be classified only as nuts, bolts, screws even if they formed parts of automobile. 9. Mr. Dileep Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in Civil Appeal Nos. 4598-4612 of 1994, strenuously contends that nuts, bolts and screws, etc, are generic terms and notwithstanding the fact that they are parts of automobile, they would nonetheless be species of nuts and bolts and ought to be classified as such under Tariff Item 52. He relies upon the latter part of the judgment in Purewal Associates Limited (supra) which deals with nuts and bolts, etc., in support of his contention. 10. The controversy in these appeals pertains to the classification of the following goods : (1) Sprint Centre Bolts with Nuts; (2) Spring U Bolt with Nuts; (3) Spring U Clamps with nuts and plates; (4) Spring Shackle Pin (Shackle Bolt) with Nuts; (5) Spring Shackle Pin (Spring Pin); (6) Hub Bolts and Nut Chevrolets; (7) Hub Bolt and Nut Chev Viking; (8) Hub Bolt and Nut Tata Diesel Vehicle; (9) Hub Bolt and Nut Dodge B.I.F.; (10) Hub Bolt and Nut Dodge K.E.W.; (11) Hub Bolt and Nut Dodge Timken; (12) Hub Bolt and Nut Dodge Rocket; (13) Hub Bolt and Nut Leyland; (14) Hub Bolt and Nut Ford V.8.; (15) Hub Bolt and Nut Ford Kekra and Ford Thames; (16) Hub Bolt and Nut Bedford J-4 and J-6; (17) Hub Bolt and Nut Shaktiman and Jeep; (18) Hub Bolt and Nut Benz 10 Ton; (19) Hub Bolt and Nut Minibus; (20) Hub Bolt and Nut Square Type; (21) Hub Bolt and Nut Peyken; (22) Genuine Nuts; (23) Azle Studs with Nuts; (24) Hub Bolt and Washers; (25) Checknuts; (26) Shaft Bolts; (27) Misc. Bolts; (28) Sprint Shackle Assembly; (29) Gun Metal Bushes; (30) King Pin King Pin Unit; (31) Fan Blades; and (32) Spring Hanger and Brackets. 11. As the controversy centres round Tariff Items 52 and 68 in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it will be apt to refer them here. They read as follows : Explanation :- The expression "Bolts and nuts,, threaded or tapped and screws" used in this item shall include bolt ends,, screw studs,, screw studding,, self-tapped screws,, screw hooks and screw rings. Rate threaded or tapped Item Description and screws of base metal or alloys of (1) (2)