KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether "thrust washers", "thrust half-washers" and 'wrapped' bushes manufactured by the appellant exclusively for motor vehicles could be classified as "thin walled-bearings" so as to attract duty under Notification No. 99 issued in 1971. Apart from this another legal question which has cropped up mainly due to the High court's finding and approach of departmental authorities whether a goods which has a meaning assigned to it with consensus ofdepartment and trade could be held to be so even without satisfying the requirements on the premise that the court and quasi-judicial authorities are not bound by it.

(2.) Legally there can be no two opinions that a trade notice issued by the Collector of Excise or even the central and Excise Tariff Board (in brief 'board') has no binding authority and the assessing authority can draw its conclusions but the importance of it can be appreciated in this appeal only when facts, in brief, are narrated. The appellant is manufacturer of the bushes and washers which are exclusively used in motor vehicles. They are thus parts and accessories and were dutiable under Item 34-A which read as under:in 1971 Notification No. 99 was issued exempting motor vehicles' accessories and parts except those which are mentioned in the Schedule. The notification is reproduced below:

(3.) The Assistant Collector did not agree and held that since the goods manufactured by the appellant were thin-walled bearings falling under Item No. 34-A, it was liable to pay duty on these goods. The Assistant Collector did not accept the claim of the appellant that only bearings which are manufactured according to the specification mentioned in Tables Nos. 2 to 5 of ISI were liable to be classified as thin-walled bearings. In appeal the Collector of central Excise held: