2005 (3) TMI 610 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Steel Castings of Wheels under Tariff Item No. 25(16)(ii) - Marketability of the product

Classification Issue Analysis:
The appeal challenges the classification of 'Steel Castings of Wheels' under Tariff Item No. 25(16)(ii), contending that the items are not marketable goods due to the unique manufacturing process involving high temperatures. The appellant argues that the items are not in a marketable condition as they have not undergone further processing to become marketable goods. The CEGAT had previously remanded the matter to examine the manufacturing process and marketability claims. The appellant asserts that the items, in their current state, do not meet the criteria for classification as forged goods under the said Tariff Item.

Marketability Issue Analysis:
The Commissioner rejected the appellant's contentions, citing a judgment related to forged products in rough machined conditions. The appellant distinguishes this judgment, emphasizing that the goods in question have not reached a marketable stage. The appellant argues that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of marketability, and the acceptance of the manufacturing process by the Deputy Commissioner undermines the demands. The judgment notes that the items are in a pre-forged condition and not yet marketable as forged products. It emphasizes that for classification under the relevant Tariff Item, the goods must have emerged as forged products, which is not the case here. The judgment concludes that the items, as they stand, are not considered marketable goods and, therefore, supports the appellant's contention. It highlights the misapplication of the TISCO judgment, as the items are in a pre-forged stage and do not meet the criteria for classification under the Tariff Item.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeal, stating that the items do not qualify as marketable goods under the specified Tariff Item. The judgment underscores the importance of marketability in classification and the distinction between the current state of the items and the criteria for classification as forged goods. The decision provides consequential relief to the appellant based on the findings.