Full Judgment
He pleaded that the appellants have claimed the product under Item 68, whereas, the Assistant Collector had assessed the same under 51A(ii).
Being not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who classified the same as plier under Item 51A(i), CET. Shri Sridharan fairly stated that though the contention of the appellants is for assessment under Item 68, he does not have any material to counter the evidence of the Collector (Appeals). Shri J.N. Nair, the learned JDR, who appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct in law and the appeal may be dismissed in view of what has been submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants.
2. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned advocate before us has fairly stated that the goods manufactured are pliers which falls under Tariff Item No. 51A(i). The tariff entry reads as under :- (i) Pliers (including cutting pliers) spanners, wrenches, files and rasps, screw drivers (including ratchet types);" We have looked into the record and submissions of both the sides and the product manufactured by the appellants is a plier. The definition as given in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Mechanical and Design Engineering by Sybil P. Parker at page 255 is reproduced below:- "A small instrument with two handles and two grasping jaws, usually long and roughened, working on a pivot, used for holding small objects and cutting, bending arid shaping wire".
The definition for the word pliers as given in McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms at page 1448, Fourth Edition, by Sybil P. Parker is reproduced below: "A small instrument with two handles and two grasping jaws, usually long and roughened, working on a pivot, used for holding small objects and cutting, bending, and shaping wire".
The product manufactured by the appellants is in full conformity with the definitions given in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd and Anr. etc v. U.O.I.and Ors., reported in 1978 (2) ELT (J 336) has observed as follows :- "The Act charges duty on manufacture of goods. The word "manufacture" implies a change but every change in the raw material is not manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. The duty is levied on goods. As the Act does not define goods, the legislature must be taken to have used that word in its ordinary dictionary meaning. The dictionary meaning is that to become goods it must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold and is known to the market. That it would be such an article which would attract the Act was brought out in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd, 1963 Supp.
(1) SCR 586." 3. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the product manufactured by the appellants, namely, crimping tools fall under Item 51A(i), CET. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.