TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The goods under consideration in this case are described by the appellants as "Diamond Products". They were classified by the Excise authorities under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, as "Grinding Wheels and the like". The appellants contested this classification, and it is for resolving this dispute that the matter has come up before us. 3. Appearing for the appellants, Shri K.S.C. Bose explained that after the introduction of Item 51 in the Central Excise Tariff in 1971, the appellants had submitted a classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, in which they listed various products manufactured by them. He stated that in this list the goods were described as being excisable under Item ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a "wheel". Since this pertains to a question of fact, he was asked whether such a ground was taken before the Assistant Collector or the Appellate Collector. Shri Bose admitted that it was not. 5. We pointed out to Shri Bose that such a basic question of fact could not appropriately be raised at the second appeal stage. Both the wording of the relevant tariff item and the nature of their own goods were very well known to the appellants at the relevant time and they could have raised this ground at the earlier stage. Having failed to do so, they are not entitled to raise such a ground before the Tribunal. 6. Apart from this, we observe that the description contained in Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff is very comprehens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Bose then argued that Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff corresponds to Heading 68.04 of the CCCN. The CCCN also includes a separate heading Number 82.05 covering interchangeable tools for hand tools, for machine tools etc. From 1-3-1974 a separate Item No. 51A for "tools" was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. According to Shri Bose, the goods manufactured by them were correctly classifiable as tools, and this was evident from the subsequent introduction of a specific item for tools in the Central Excise Tariff. In this connection Shri Bose referred to a Trade Notice No. 50/CE/77, dated 18-8-1977, said to have been issued by the Chandigarh Central Excise Collectorate and appearing at page 782-783 of Central Excise Tari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fidavits are purported to have been affirmed in April 1975 and therefore would have been made with reference to the appeal before us which is dated 11-4-1975. Shri Tayal objected to the introduction of evidence in the nature of such affidavits at the stage of revision application or second appeal. We did not however have to rule on that objection because we found that, very surprisingly, what were purported to have been the original affidavits filed with the original revisional application did not bear the signatures of the deponents or the seal of a Notary Public. Such unsigned papers obviously cannot have any value and we can only express our surprise that these should have been filed in that condition and sought to be relied upon. 11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be taken to constitute a definition for Central Excise purposes. Regarding the Chandigarh Collectorate Trade Notice, Shri Tayal argued that this was issued at a subsequent time and with reference to a different tariff item and should not be relied upon for the purposes of classification at a previous time when Tariff Item 51A did not exist. 15. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides. We observe that although from 1-3-1974 the Central Excise Tariff has a separate Item No. 51A covering tools, this item did not exist at the material period, whereas the Item No. 51 which inter alia covers "grinding wheels" did. As see from paragraph 6 above, the description and scope of the expression "grinding wheels" was ve....