JUDGMENT

K. N. SAIKIA, J:—The appellants M/ s.Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt Ltd., Bombay are manufacturing of Injection Moulding Machines of four categories and the same were classified under tariff Item No. 68. For these machines they manufacture approximately 19 parts, one of which is called "Tie Bar Nuts" which are the subject matter of this appeal. The Tie Bar Nuts are manufactured from 2 3/4" hexagonal M. S. Bar having special threads known as acmethreads. The Tie Bar Nuts are stated to be components of Injection Moulding Machines (tailormade) and are used to fix the platens incorrect distances in between tie bars.

2. The appellants submitted their classfication list for the year 1981-82 for 84 gms. 56 gms., and 70 gms., semi-automatic and fully automatic "Plasmac" Injection Moulding Machines under tariff Item 68 along with enclosure of 19 parts manufactured and used in the said machines. In these 19 parts Tie Bar Nuts were shown against Srl. No. 16. However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified and approved the said Tie Bar Nuts under tariff Item 52 and not under 68. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-I vide his letter dated 20-10-1981 forwarded the classification list and directed the appellants to file a separate classification list for the Tie Bar Nuts under tariff Item 52 and take out licence for the same and also to furnish value and clearance of Tie Bar Nuts for the year 1980-81 and 1981-82. Aggrieved at this classification the appellants appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal) Bombay who, while allowing the appeal, ordered that Tie Bar Nuts be classified under tariff Item 68 on the ground that Tie Bar Nuts were not available in the market and were designed for a particular purpose i.e. for Injection Moulding Machines, and those could not be used for any other purpose. The department appealed therefrom to the Central Custom, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Before the Tribunal the department, inter alia, contended that the sample of the product showed that it was a plain nut and no special features were apparent, and that the main function of the Tie Bar Nuts would be of fastening, and other functions, if any, would be secondary. It was contended by the appellants that the Tie Bar Nuts were used in course of the continuous process of manufacture of the machines and formed its integral part, being specifically made for use in the machines; and that Tie Bar Nuts were neither available nor saleable in the market, their only function being to fix the platens in correct distances between Tie Bars.

3. The Appellate Tribunal held that from the evidence on record, it is found that according to the appellants themselves the Tie Bar Nuts in question have the function of fastening for the machine and, therefore, the contention that the main function of Tie Bar Nuts is not to fasten any part but . to adjust the distance between two platens does not change the complex of the case, and that there is no doubt that the Tie Bar Nuts would merit classification under tariff Item 52. The departments appeal having thus been allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, the appellants have preferred this appeal under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

4. Mr. Puchkanimal, the learned counsel for the appellants submits, inter alia, that the appellants have since long been classifying Tie Bar Nuts under tariff Item 68 without objection from the department and there is no justification for the department to change that classification; that the Tribunals finding that on the appellants own showing that Tie Bar Nuts performed the function of fastening was wrong; and that the Tie Bar Nuts Produced by the appellants to specifications required for captive use in the Injection Moulding Machines and not for sale in the market could not be classified under tariff Item A 52.

5. Mr. Santosh Hegde, the learned Addl. Solicitor General, referring to the