2002 (10) TMI 515 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether 'Hammer Union' and Swivel Joint are covered by Group Code 61/71(ii) of the Schedule to D.E.P.B.

The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of 'Hammer Union' and Swivel Joint under Group Code 61/71(ii) of the Schedule to D.E.P.B. The Appellant, engaged in exporting forged non-alloy steel Swivel Joints and Hammer Unions, claimed DEPB benefits under Entry No. 71(ii) of the Engineering Group. The Commissioner (Customs) denied the benefit, arguing that the goods were distinct products in a ready-to-use condition, not forgings. The Appellant contended that the goods were machined components requiring further processing by customers and should be classified under the DEPB entry. The Appellant cited precedents supporting their position, emphasizing that the goods were not ready-to-use equipment but forged components needing additional machining.

The Respondent countered, asserting that the goods were identifiable parts of machinery, evidenced by invoices describing them as 'Hammer Union' and 'Swivel Joint.' They argued that the drilling and reduction of height were done on machine parts for fitment purposes. The Respondent referred to a decision introducing a specific entry in the DEPB Schedule for identifiable machine parts made predominantly of alloy steel/stainless steel through forging. The Appellant maintained that at the relevant time, the goods fell under the generic entry No. 71(ii) covering machined forgings, emphasizing that the Revenue did not dispute the machining aspect.

Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the DEPB entry for Alloy Steel/Stainless Steel Forgings (machined). The Revenue contended that the goods had transformed from forgings into precision equipment ready for use, while the Appellant argued that the goods remained forgings requiring further processing by customers. The Commissioner had determined that the goods were distinct products in a ready-to-use state, unaffected by drilling or height reduction. The Tribunal found merit in the Commissioner's findings, noting that the goods had evolved into identifiable parts like 'Hammer Union' and 'Swivel Joint.' Precedents were cited to distinguish between castings and parts, with the Tribunal rejecting the appeal based on the goods' transformation beyond forgings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the goods had transitioned from forgings to identifiable parts, precluding them from classification under the DEPB entry for machined forgings. The Tribunal differentiated the case from precedents involving exemption notifications, highlighting the distinct nature of the current dispute. As such, the appeal was dismissed based on the goods' transformation and their classification as identifiable finished products, 'Hammer Union' and 'Swivel Joint.'