ORDER
V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the entitlement of refund claimed by the appellants, M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd., of duty paid by them during the period 1-10-1975 to 31-1-1978 on the U Bolts and the front suspension bolts manufactured by them for use in the Leaf Spring Assembly of automobiles. They had been paying duty under protest. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 15-4-1982 held that duty had been properly paid under Item 52 CET as the goods were not chargeable under Item No. 34A CET. Accordingly he rejected the refund claim. This was upheld by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 21-9-1982. This apeal is against the said order.
2. We have heard Shri V. Sreedharan, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Balbir Singh for the department.
3. In view of the recent order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Mis New Mangalore Engineering Company (P) Ltd., under order No. 746/1987-D, dated 12-8-1987 in excise appeal No. 939 of 1983-D it is unnecessary to consider the submissions in very great detail. That decision dealt that U Bolts, Centre Bolts and Eye Bolts used in automobile Leaf Spring Assembly. That is to say, that decision dealt with the same goods as in the present case. The Tribunal took note of the trade notice No. 235 of 1977 issued by the Madras Central Excise Collector and the trade notice 234/77 dated 4-7-1977 issued by the Bombay Central Excise Collector, which trade notices took note of the opinion of the DGTD. The trade notices took note of the fact that U Bolts, Eye Bolts and Centre Bolts used in Leaf Spring Assembly do not perform a mere fastening function only, but are manufactured with specific functions to be performed in the Leaf Spring Assembly, and that they are not normally inter-changeable. It was, therefore, held, in the said decision that till the amendment of Item 34A these goods fell under Item 34A and that, after the amendment they fell under Item 68 CET and not Item 52 CET. Respectfully following the said decision we hold that in the period in issue in this appeal, the subject goods fell under Item 34A CET and not under Item 52 CET.
4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief.