of Central Excise (Appeal) Bombay, who, while allowing the ï7 Item No. 68. He took the view that the nuts in question were not available in the market and were designed for a particu- lar purpose for Injection Moulding Machines and could not be used for any other purpose. Thereupon the Department pre- ferred appeal to the Central Custom. Excise and Gold Control Tribunal, New Delhi and contended before the Tribunal that the sample of the product showed that it was a plain nut and no special features were apparent and the main function of the Tie Bar Nuts was to fasten. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the Tie Bar Nuts would merit classifica- tion under Tariff Item No. 52. The appellants have thus filed this appeal under section 35L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: If according to law Tie Bar Nuts fall within tariff Item 52, the fact that department earlier approved their classification under tariff item 68 will not stop it from revising that classification to one under item 52. There could be no estoppel against a statute. [387F-G] If an article is classifiable under a specific Item, it would be against the very principle of classification to deny it the proper percentage and consign it to the residuary item. [391D] There is no dispute that Tie Bar Nuts conform to the popular idea of nuts. [390H] The ’Tie Bar Nuts’ function of fixing the platens as stated by the appellants and that of factening, as argued by them, are not basically different, and the appellants them- selves having called the goods as ’nuts’ we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in classifying Tie Bar Nuts under Tariff Item 52. There is therefore, no reason to interfere with the department’s order and no justification for classifying those in the residuary item 68. [391C] M/s. Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,[1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 671: Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, [1989] 1 SCC 602; M/s. Ujagar Prints and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 488; Simonds Marshal Ltd. v. M.R. Baralikar, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, [1986] 22 ELT 378; Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., [1981] 3 SCR 294; Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, [1976] 2 SCC 241; Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1986] 3 SCC 480; Indian ï7 and M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1988] 2 SCC 470, Referred to. JUDGMENT: