9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. This appeal arises from order-in-original, dated 31-10-1989 passed by Addl. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi informing the duty demand of Rs. 3,57,094.50 and also imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants have manufactured forged products and had cleared the same under Heading 7208.00 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 or 90/88 or 202/88 which gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that the issue, is no longer res integra and the matter has been looked into in great detail by the Tribunal in number of judgments as in the case of M/s. Araveli Forgings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur as reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 which decided the classification of the impugned product prior to 1-3-1988. The Tribunal looked into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Bombay as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 634 (Tribunal) = 1997 (73) ECR 97. He submits that the items removed by the appellants were in forged conditions and they had not acquired the essential characteristic of an article and all other processes were carried out by the buyers. He also submits that the department in the subsequent proceedings initiated against them has dropped the same as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments referred to by ld. Advocate. In all the citations, the Tribunal has gone into great detail with regard to the classification of forged items and also with regard to the applicability of Rule 2(a) of the interpretative rules and has also considered the earlier judgments of the Tribunal, High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court. In view of the matter having been decided in the assessee s favour ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
