9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These are sold as mentioned earlier in standard sizes and the only work left to be carried out on this is giving edge. This is left to the customers which operation is done by the customer himself, it is clearly evident that the bits are classifiable under Tariff Item 51A(iii). They cannot be classifiable under Tariff Item 68. Mere giving of an edge does not take the product out of the purview of Tariff Item 51A(iii) and bring it under Tariff Item 68. I would therefore, set aside the orders of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Division V in regard to the matter of classification of the goods and the refund sanctioned by him. The application is allowed." 2. Shri Shiraz P. Rustomjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving regard to the above two decisions, their case was squarely covered by the ratio of these decisions and therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. Shri J.M. Sharma, the learned DR appearing for the respondent Collector submitted that there were two entries for classifying the goods in question. The first entry was 51A(iii) and the second T.I. 68; that the goods in dispute were tool bits and needed a very simple operation before taking into use; that the goods were manufactured in the standard size at the request of the customers themselves. He submitted that these tool bits are designed for using in tools and machines. He submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has rightly held that tool bits manufactured by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be used as such on machines, therefore, these are not tools. Thus it would be seen that there was material difference in the goods classified in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. and the goods in the present case and therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. can be distinguished. 5. We find that the appellants cited and relied the case of C.C.E., Bombay v. S.S. Miranda Ltd. supra. We find that the goods in this case were more or less similar to the goods in the case before us. The Tribunal held that "It is apparent that tool blanks cannot be put to actual use directly but are to be subjected to further processing in the nature of sharpening, edging e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
