K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)

1. The issue in this matter relates to classification of certain Automotive Switches being manufactured by appellants for use as original equipments in motor vehicles. These switches are described as flasher switch, horn and dipper switch and head-light switch (combination switch).

2. As per the orders of the lower authorities, these switches, which had been earlier classified under Central excise Tariff Item No. 68 were correctly classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 61. Appellant urges, however, that the goods had correctly been classified under Tariff Item No. 68 and that there was no warrant for a .change in practice.

3. Heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, advocate for the appellant company and Smt. Dolly Saxena, SDR for the department.

4. The learned advocate makes the point that the impugned products are not lighting switches at all. Their function, it is claimed, is not to illuminate. The actual functioning of the impugned products has been explained to us.

5. It is emphasized that in commercial parlance also the products are not known as general purpose electric goods and that they are not available with dealers of electric goods. It is stated that they are available with dealers in motor vehicle parts only. In this connection Shri Lakshmikumaran relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries Ltd. - MANU/SC/0295/1986 : 1986(25) ELT 473.

6. Appellants also state that the impugned products are for exclusive use in motor vehicles and are sold as original equipment to Ashok Leyland, of attention has also been drawn to a Tariff Advice No. 48/84 dated 12th September, 1984 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, according to which, handle bar switches for motor-cycles are excluded from the purview of Tariff Item 61 and are stated to be classifiable under Tariff Item 68.

7. Shri Lakshmikumaran further makes the point that even if the goods are held to be correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 61, duty cannot be demanded retrospectively as assessment and clearance had been going on as per approval of the department. There is no allegation at all of suppression of facts or fraud. Accordingly, duty can be demanded only from the date of a Show Cause Notice, it is submitted. The learned advocate has also relied on the following two decisions in support of the points he has made :

1. Indo-International Industries - 1981 ELT 325(5.C. ) Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.

2. New Trade Links, Madras - 1984 ECR 2060 (Cegat) v. Collector of Customs, Madras [MANU/CE/0121/1984 : 1984 (18)ELT 445(Tri)]

8. Responding, Smt. Dolly Saxena contests the point made that lighting switches should necessarily be illuminating switches. It is submitted that a perusal of the Tariff Items does not support any presumption as regards the extent of lighting necessary to bring in a switch within the purview of the relevant tariff item. Soft lighting, it is submitted, would also be included and as long as some kind of lighting is there, he switch would rightly be describable as lighting switch. It is further contended that the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Atul Glass Industries is not at ail relevant for even though the impugned products are motor vehicle parts, it cannot be denied that they are light switches. The learned SDR has cited in favour of her arguments the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. West Glass Works - MANU/CE/0048/1984 : 1984 (17) ELT 368.

9. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. The department holds that the impugned products are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 61 This Tariff Item reads as follows :

Electric lighting fittings, namely,

"Switches, plugs and sockets, all kinds, chokes and starters for fluorescent tubes".

There are two things to be immediately noticed as regards the description of the Tariff Item. Firstly, it does not talk of electric fitt