1989 (12) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otally exempt from the Central Excise duty. Such iron rolls are supplied to re-rollers to use such castings in their factories after completing certain further processes as per design at their end. These castings in the appellants factory undergo only partial machining to remove the surface defects on the main body of the rolls. No doubt fine machining is also done on certain portion of the castings, namely; the collar portions which are about 3-1/2" on either side of the rolls but this surface machining and fine machining of the collar do not covert the casting to any different form, nor does it transfrom it into a different identifiable product such as, machine parts etc. 2. Sh. M. Mookherjee, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, fur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the fine machining had been done only to the collars of the rolls and that these rolls had to undergo further fine machining and grooving before they could be used as parts of the machines. He however stressed that the goods should be assessed under T.I.68 of the C.E.T. and cited a case reported in 1977(1) E.L.T. J-26 (Supreme Court) in the case of Union of India Ors. v. State of Mysore, wherein Mamties, pick axes, sledge hammers, shovels ploughs made out of pre-excise stocks of iron steel products which had not been born any excise duty at all could not be assessed to duty under T.1.26AA of C.E.T. He drew attention of the Bench about difference in the wording under T.I. 25 and 26AA of the C.E.T. and stressed that the words i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erjee, learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments, are squarely applicable in the present case. The machining done at the appellants factory to the iron castings is negligible in nature except in the collar portion. The extent of machining done at the middle portion which was brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative is not of much importance. We think this was only done to reduce surface defects on the castings. We also agree with Sh. Mookherjee that this machining does not have the effect of bringing in any new product into existence, which is known in the market as such. Hence it would not be correct to say that the machining done has resulted in the manufacture of a new product. In view of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X