Trade understanding governs excise classification of jockey pulleys; evidence supported Item 68, not bearings classification.

Classification of jockey pulleys turned on trade understanding and whether the Department proved they were recognised as bearings. On the evidence, including invoices, purchase orders and affidavits from trade participants, the goods were known as jockey pulleys and not bearings, so Tariff Item 49 could not apply. The Department's reliance on I.S.I. definitions failed because they were not the basis of the show cause notice, and the trade notices cited did not specifically classify jockey pulleys under Item 49. Earlier classification under Item 68 was also supported by the record, with no fresh facts, manufacturing change or legal amendment justifying a different view; the goods were therefore classifiable under Item 68.

---

---

Issues: Whether jockey pulleys were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 49 of the Central Excise Tariff as bearings, or under Tariff Item No. 68.

Analysis: The decisive test for classification was how the goods were known in the trade and whether the Department had shown that they were recognised as bearings. The evidence before the Tribunal, including invoices, purchase orders and affidavits from trade participants, showed that the goods were described and understood as jockey pulleys, not as bearings. The finding of the Collector rested on no supporting evidence and could not be sustained on the basis of I.S.I. definitions, which were not the basis of the show cause notice. The trade notices and tariff advice relied upon by the Department did not specifically classify jockey pulleys under Item 49 and, in any event, the earlier trade notice permitted duty under Item 49 only where the bearing portion came into existence as a complete and identifiable whole. The record also showed prior classification under Item 68 and no fresh facts, change in manufacture, or amendment in law justifying departure from the earlier position.

Conclusion: Jockey pulleys were not classifiable as bearings under Tariff Item No. 49 and were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68; the assessee succeeded.

---