JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJ1, J.:— This is an appeal under S. 35-L of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order dated 31-10-1988 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

2. The issue involved in this appeal mainly relates to the classification of the goods, namely, whether the products of the appellant in this case were end-fittings or nuts? The question was whether the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 52 or Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile first Schedule to the Act.

3. The appellant applied for requisite central excise licence for manufacture of goods falling under Tariff Item 68 and for the purpose of such goods L-4 licence was also furnished, and also the requisite ground plans of the factory showing the requisite sanction of the factory in which the various goods were manufactured. The excise authorities granted L-4 licence. The appellant contends that the same was done after verifying the ground plans. Necessary classification list was supplied on 22nd March, 1979 for approval by the excise authorities and the appellant claimed benefit of exemption of notification No. 89/79-Central Excise dated 1-3-79. The said classification list submitted by the appellant was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his letter dated 25th May, 1979. For the period from 1-4-79 to 30-6-79, the appellant filed his RT-12 for the assessment, which was also finally assessed without any protest or objection. Inasmuch as, the appellant claimed that its goods were wholly exempted by virtue of the notification No. 89/79-CE dated 1-3-79, the appellant wrote to the Superintendent of Central Excise asking for dispensation from filing RT-12 every month. The Superintendent by his order informed the appellant that it need not fil RT-12, but should inform the Excise Department monthly by means of a simple letter the total clearance effected in the month in question. Thereafter, the appellant submitted classification lists in 1980, 1981 and 1982 it respect of the said goods and claimed the benefit of the exemption under notification No. 105/80-Central Excise, dated 19-6-80 which was a subsequent notification. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise duly approved the said classification lists. It is stated that the Central Excise Officers attached to the Preventive Branch visited on or around 13-7-82, the factory of the appellant and examined the products manufactured by the appellant. The excise authorities once again, it is stated, visited the factory of the appellant on 20th July, 1982. However, on 17th January, 1983, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant asking it to show- cause as to why excise duty should not be demanded under Tariff Item 52 in respect of 14,88,838 pieces of nuts manufactured and removed by the appellant during the period 1st April, 1981 to 19th July, 1982 without payment of appropriate excise duty thereon. It was further stated in the show cause notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on the appellant for failing to obtain the requisite L-4 licence under Tariff Item 52 in respect of the said goods and for failing to file price lists and classification lists in respect thereof and further to show cause why the material seized on 26th August, 1982 should not be confiscated. The appellant showed cause, and drew attention to the Indian Standard Institution publication for specification of High Pressure Connection meant for lubricating arrangement of oil in Fuel Injection Equipment for Diesel Engines which according to the appellant showed that the goods in question were not nuts but end products or connectors for lubricating purposes and as such were integral parts of the Diesel Engine Pipes falling under Tariff Item 68.

4. On 16th July, 1984, the Collector Central Excise passed orders holding that fittings were nuts classifiable under Tariff Item 52 and that appropriate dut