1996 (5) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Excisability of products under different tariff items, classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff, two-stage duty liability, incidental processes to casting, interpretation of Supreme Court judgments.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the excisability of products like Buffer Casing, Buffer Plunger, Pivot Top, Pivot Bottom, Loco Plunger, Loco Casing, C.B. Couplers, and Components. The main issue was whether these products should be dutiable under Item No. 68 after initially paying duty under Item No. 25(16)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued that the processes of machining and polishing were incidental to casting and did not create new commercially known products. The Revenue contended that the goods, processed to meet Railway specifications, were identifiable parts for use by Railways, thus attracting two-stage duty under Item No. 25 and Item No. 68.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate cited relevant court judgments to support their argument that incidental processes to casting do not change the dutiability of the goods. The Revenue representative emphasized that the goods, manufactured as per Railway designs and specifications, were identifiable and ready for use by Railways, justifying the levy of two-stage duty.

The Tribunal examined the manufacturing process and classification list, noting that the goods were made as per Railway designs and specifications, thus justifying the classification under Item No. 68 at the finished stage. The Assistant Collector's physical examination confirmed that the goods underwent various processes post-casting to meet customer specifications, leading to the correct classification under Item No. 25 and Item No. 68.

The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) also examined samples and bills, concluding that the products were ready-made components for Railway Wagons at the clearance stage. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the goods were tailor-made for individual customers as per specific orders and designs, justifying the classification under Item No. 68 in addition to duty under Item No. 25 at the casting stage.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments, the Tribunal reiterated that when rough machined castings undergo precision machining, two-stage duty is leviable, as incidental processes do not alter the dutiability of the goods. Since there was no evidence of further processing by customers and the goods were ready for use, the classification under Item No. 68 was upheld.

Considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it accordingly.