9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured by the assessee were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68. This order of the Asstt. Collector was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. 2. The matter was heard on 1-10-1996 when Shri Devnath, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR represented the respondent/Revenue. 3. The ld. Advocate stated that the goods in question were forged product and they were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 25 (8) of the Central Excise Tariff as was in force before the change over to the new Tariff. He submitted that the goods could come to Tariff Item 68 only if they were not otherwise classifiable in any of the specific entries. It was his submission that the matter is covered by the Large ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter is covered by the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE v. Eastern Industries reported at 1989 (43) E.L.T. 723 (Tribunal). Paras 3, 4 and 5 form the above judgment are extracted below :- 3. It appears that the process of manufacture of rivets consists of cutting the rod to the required length, then die-forging the same to form the hemispherical head and then finning the other end to form the tapering end. The case for the Deptt. is the item would fall for classification under Item 26AA(ia) Central Excise Tariff on the ground that it would be a forged shape not otherwise specified. As already seen the process of manufacture, apart from forging consists of finning also. As to what would a shape or section as mentioned in the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssifiable under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff during the relevant period and not under Item 26AA(ia). As earlier mentioned this appeal is only with reference to the order of the Collector relating to rivets. In view of our conclusion above noted this appeal is dismissed. 9. The Tribunal had referred to the Central Board of Excise Custom s letter dated 25-4-1979 while coming to the decision that Rivets being a known product having a specific name classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Tariff Item No. 26AA(ia) as forged shaped not otherwise specified . 10. The ld. Advocate had submitted that their product and the product under consideration in the Tribunal s order referred to above were different i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
