IMPORTANT POINT
While interpreting the entries in the Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, they must be construed as understood in common parlance and words used by legislature must be given their popular sense.

JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-In these two appeals a common question, to put it broadly, namely whether the articles manufactured by the respective appellants fall under Tariff Item 52 (Specific Entry) as claimed by the Revenue or under Tariff Item 68 (Residuary Item) of Central Excise Tariff arises for our consideration. We may at once point out that the articles manufactured by the respective appellants are totally different and the decision, therefore, rests upon the kind of articles manufactured by the respective appellants. We, therefore, propose to deal with the facts separately and give out decision thereon.

2. In the first case, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2800/84 the appellants are manufacturers of watches. In the course of manufacture of watches, the appellants inter alia manufactured four specified articles with which we are concerned, namely, Lid screw, Barrel axle screw, Bridge screw and the Dial key screw. The controversy between the Revenue and the appellants with regard to these four articles was whether these four specified items are classifiable under Item 52 of the Schedule as bolts, nuts and screws or item 68 as all other goods not elsewhere specified .

3. The Assistant Collector after issuing a show cause notice to which the appellants promptly sent a detailed reply, decided that the said items fall under Tariff Item 52. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) after going through the materials placed before him held in favour of the appellants by deciding that the specified items will fall under Tariff Item 68. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in its elaborate order while upsetting the order of the Collector (Appeals) restored the order of the Assistant Collector. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred under Section 35(L)(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

4. Mr. D.A. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal though elaborately set out the arguments of both sides, misdirected itself while taking the final decision and consequently reached a wrong conclusion. According to the learned Senior Counsel this Court has time and again upheld that in the matter of construction of Entries in the Schedule, the predominant test is the understanding of the Entry/Article in the trade as well as in common parlance should be preferred rather than its dictionary or technical or scientific meaning. In this case, to substantiate the case of the appellant, evidence from the trade by way of affidavits were filed before the first authority itself namely, the Assistant Collector. In addition to that, an engineer in the employment to appellant by name Shri Harpreet Singh, gave a detailed description of the functions of each of the four articles under consideration with the object of showing that they did not perform the basic function of fastening but functioned in different ways. Further to butress the stand of the appellant, reliance was placed on two trade notices issued by the Bombay Collectorate and Punjab Collectorate, namely trade notice 127/71 dated 5.7.1971 and trade notice 117/79 dated 28.12.1979 respectively. According to the learned Senior Counsel, those trade notices support the case of the appellant. Above all, the learned Senior Counsel contended that a view taken by the Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No. 325/78.C.E. dated 8.5.1978 in Western Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur case which was accepted by the Revenue was pressed into service before the Tribunal and the Tribunal while accepting the view distinguished on facts without appreciating that in principle the case cannot be distinguished. He also submitted that the Revenue notwithstanding the fact that the Collector (Appeals) has taken note of the affidavits filed by the appellants, has not taken any steps to counter the evidence produced by the appellants to the effect that th