JUDGMENT

SEN, J :- The appellants manufacture and sell what they call as THROW - Away INSERTS (hereinafter referred to as the Inserts). During the period up to 17-6-77, these Inserts were classified under T.I. No. 68. In view of the amendment in T.I. No. 51A, these Inserts were classified under that Tariff Item Number from 18-6-77. Until 28-2-79, the appellants paid duty accordingly. On 1-3-79, they filed a revised classification list in which inserts were listed at Serial Nos. 1716 to 1741. Since the Department intended to make certain inquiries likely to take sometime, classification of the inserts was provisionally approved under Item No. 51 A (iii). On 25-2-80, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, issued a Show Cause Notice asking the appellants as to why the classification in respect of the inserts approved earlier provisionally under T.I. No. 51A (iii) should not be changed to T.I. No. 62. A similar Show Cause Notice was issued in respect of the Classification List No. 5 effective from 20-6-79, No. 6 effective from 2-7-79, No.7 effective from 6-7-79, No.8 effective from 12-7-79 and No. 14 effective from 28-11-79, in so far as these pertained to the Inserts. Under an order dated 28-4-80/ 2-5-80, reclassification proposed under the Show Cause Notices was confirmed. That is to say, the Inserts were classified under T.I. No. 62 as Tools Tips.

2. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 1982/ 80 (F. No. V.2 (62) 1982/ 80). Besides this appeal, there were two other appeals, one registered as Appeal No. 2218/ 80 (F.No. V2 (51A) 2218/ 80), against the Order No. V-51A (17) 131/ VC/ 80 dated 10-7-80, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, by which he confirmed the demand for differential duty (as a result of reclassification) in respect of the Inserts cleared from April, 1976 to December, 1978. The other appeal was registered as Appeal No. 35/ 81 (F.No. V.2 (62) 988/ 81), against the Assessment Order No. 35/ 81, dated 7-1-81, made by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range C, Nasik, by which he indicated that short levy in respect of the Inserts cleared from January, 1979 to April, 1980, differential duty demanded was on account of the reclassification made as aforesaid.

3. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held :-

"As I understand, the basic difference between the Tool Tips and the so-called Inserts is that the former are mounted on Tool by brazing (soldering), whereas the latter are clamped on the tools and are separable. Having regard to these facts and to the scope of the expression in any form or size appearing in T.I. No. 62, I find difficult to persuade myself to agree with the appellants contention. Now let us see what the IS: 4022.1967 for Cemented Carbide Indexable Throw Away Inserts states. It says "Indexable inserts are being increasingly used for machining of metal by turning and milling. They derive their name from the fact that the insert is held mechanically in a tool holder for turning or in a milling cutter for milling. From this, it is seen that these are known as Inserts because of the manner in which they are inserted in a Tool Holder. In fact at Para 0.6 of the standard, it is stated that this standard is based on Draft ISO Recommendation No. 997 Throw Away Carbide Tips of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). From this also, one can infer that these are not two different things, specially in view of the scope of the Item 62. The mere fact that the mode of fixation of Tips and Inserts is different should not in any way blur the correct classification and for the reasons stated earlier, the inserts are classificable under T.I. No.62 as held correctly in the impugned order.

4. The Collector further held that the demand for short levy for the period January, 1979 to February, 1979 was barred by limitation. But the demand for the period March, 1979 to April, 1980 was sustainable.

5. The assessee applied for revision to the Central