G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President

1. The dispute in the present appeals turns, in the main, on the classification, under the First Schedule (hereinafter referred to as "the CEP") to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), of air brake hose assemblies manufactured by Sundaram Clayton Ltd. and Hydraulic brake hose assemblies manufactured by Brakes India Ltd. This central issue is common to all these appeals. Another common feature is that the disputes pertain to the period after the changes brought about, with effect from 1-3-1979, by the Finance Bill, 1979, in Item No. 34A, CET. Prior to 1-3-1979, the Item read :

"Parts and accessories, not elsewhere specified, of motor vehicles and tractors, including trailers." (There were two "Explanations" to the item which, not being relevant for the present disputes, have not been reproduced)

With the changes brought about with effect from 1-3-1979, Item No. 34 A read :

"Parts and accessories of motor vehicles' and tractors, including trailers, the following, namely:-" (15 articles are specified in the item but air-brake and hydraulic brake hose assemblies do not figure therein. There are also two "Explanations" to the item which are not relevant for the present purpose).

2. Prior to 1-3-1979, Item No. 34A was of a wide amplitude taking within its sweep all parts and accessories of motor vehicles not elsewhere specified. However, by an exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government had exempted all parts and accessories of motor vehicles falling under the said item except 12 articles specified in the Schedule to the Notification. Air and hydraulic brake hose assemblies were not in the list of specified items subject to duty. Though we are not concerned in the present disputes with determination of the issue whether, these hose assemblies fell for classification under Item 34 A prior to 1-3-1979, we have thought it proper to refer to the pre-1-3-1979 situation for a better appreciation of the discussions which follow.

3. Insofar as the situation on and after 1-3-1979 is concerned, Item No. 34 A became considerably narrowed down in its scope and its coverage was restricted to 15 specified articles and the subject hose assemblies were not one of them.

4. The dispute between the Revenue and the assessees is whether the subject hose assemblies (which are admittedly for use in motor vehicles and are parts of motor vehicles) fall for classification during the period commencing 1-3-1979 under Item 16A or 68, CET.

5. Item No. 16A, CET reads as follows :-"Rubber products, the following, namely :-

1. x x x

2. "x x x

3. Piping and tubing of unhardened vulcanized rubber.

4. xxx xxx xxx

Central Excise Notification No. 197/67 , dated 29-8-1967 exempts from excise duty piping and tubing of unhardened vulcanized rubber falling under Item No. 16A(3), designed for use as hydraulic or air brake hose in motor vehicles.

6. Item No. 68, CET, covers "All other goods, not elsewhere specified" with certain specified exceptions which are not relevant for our purpose.

7. While the assessees claim that the subject goods fall under Item No. 16A(3), CET and are eligible for exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 197/67, the Revenue contends that the goods fall under Item No. 68 and are liable to duty under that item.

8. Against the above background, we may now consider these cases.

9. The assessees procure rubber hoses which have discharged duty liability (actually exempted from duty under Notification No. 197/67) under Item No. 16 A, CET, and bring them to their factory. These are, according to Brakes India's letter dated 2-11-1979, cut to size and fitted with nozzles (hose ends) on both ends. The nozzles are fixed with the hose by crimping the edges. The resultant article is sold as hydraulic brake hose assembly. It is used for transmission of hydraulic brake fluid from the master cylinder assembly to wheel cylinder as