1988 (6) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of cast iron rolls under Tariff Item 26AA or Tariff Item 68.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the classification of cast iron rolls under Tariff Item 26AA or Tariff Item 68. The appellant-Collector filed an appeal with a delay of two days, which was condoned due to postal delays. The respondent company argued that the cast iron rolls fell under Tariff Item 26AA, while the department contended that further machining converted them into machinery parts liable to duty under Tariff Item 68.

The department presented evidence that the rolls were machined beyond mere fettling, as per annexures submitted by the respondent company. The learned SDR emphasized that the goods had been further processed and were not merely castings anymore. The department cited relevant case laws to support their argument, including judgments from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

The respondent company, in their cross-objections, claimed that the rolls required additional machining for use in rolling mills, asserting that the minor machining they performed did not change the essential character of the castings. However, the tribunal found that the machining undertaken by the respondent company went beyond mere fettling, as detailed in their letter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

The tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that once an article acquires a distinguishable identity through manufacturing processes, it becomes exigible to duty. They agreed with the department's argument that the goods produced by the respondent company were beyond the stage of mere castings and could be classified under Tariff Item 68. The tribunal concluded that the goods were separately liable to duty under Tariff Item 68, in addition to being classified as castings at an earlier stage. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant-Collector.