ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. The appellants are manufacturers among other piston used in motor vehicles. They claimed classification of pistons under Heading 8708 as parts of motor vehicles. This claim has been rejected by department on the ground that pistons are appropriately classifiable as parts of engines under Heading 8409.
2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that they manufactured motor vehicle parts. Pistons are commercially known as motor vehicle parts and are traded as such. Apart from this, he submits that the show cause notice dated 4-2-1987 was issued by Assistant Collector for the period April, 1986 to 29-1-1987. Since it was issued for the period exceeding 6 months, the Assistant Collector was not competent to issue this notice and therefore, the entire demand notice is vitiated and merits to be set aside.
3. The Learned DR reiterates the departmental arguments.
4. We have heard both sides.
5. Heading 8708 covers “parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05”. As against this Heading 8409 specifically refers to “parts suitable for use solely or principally with the engine of the Heading 84.07 or Heading 8408. This is a specific entry which indicates that pistons which are admittedly parts of engines would be covered only under 8409. Apart from this our attention has been drawn to Tribunal’s decision in the case of Meteor Satellite Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 697 where the Tribunal held that pistons are classifiable under 8409. Following the ratio of this order, therefore, we hold that pistons are more appropriately classifiable under 8409 and therefore, we [reject] the plea of the appellants for classification of goods under 8708. Coming now to the limitation, we find that period involved is April, 1986 to 29th January, 1987 and notice was issued on 4-2-1987. The demands for duty beyond [of] 6 months would obviously be time barred but to the extent 6 months are covered, it has to be upheld. In other words, demands can be sustained only for 6 months period. The departmental authorities are therefore, directed to recalculate the amount of duty pertaining to 6 months period only.
6. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is upheld and appeal is rejected.