1989 (12) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Whether 'Cast iron rolls' fall under Tariff Item 68 or Tariff Item 25.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods, specifically 'Cast iron rolls', manufactured by M/s. A.C.C. Babcock Ltd. The appellants contended that these rolls should be classified under Tariff Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff and be exempt from Central Excise duty as they were rough castings supplied to re-rollers for further processing. The appellants argued that the machining done on the rolls, mainly to remove surface defects and fine machining on collar portions, did not transform the product into a different identifiable item such as machine parts. They presented certificates from customers supporting their claim. The appellants relied on previous decisions that partial machining could be ignored for assessment under Tariff Item 25 and that fine machining could classify the product as machine parts.

The Department, represented by Sh. V. Luxmi Kumaran, contended that the goods should be assessed under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. He referenced a Supreme Court case to support his argument and highlighted the difference in wording between Tariff Item 25 and 26AA, emphasizing that the goods needed to be in crude form to classify under Tariff Item 25. He asserted that the machining done on the rolls made them identifiable machine parts, warranting classification under Tariff Item 68 without the need for further proof.

After considering the arguments and cited decisions, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the machining done on the iron rolls was minimal, primarily focused on surface defects and collar portions. They agreed with the appellants that this machining did not create a new product known in the market. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the goods, known as cast iron rolls, should be classified under Tariff Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff, not under Tariff Item 68 as done by the Department. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the classification under Tariff Item 25 was upheld.