9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cription of the goods, headings and sub-headings as below : Copper and Articles there of No. (Chapter -74) Heading No. Sub-heading A.CASTINGOT 74.01 7401.00 B. CASTROD 74.03 7403.00 (i) of Brass (Zinc Content 5% and above) (ii) Other than brass (i.e. Gun Metal Phos-Bronze, Aluminium Bronze, Cadmium Copper etc.) having Copper Content 85% or more by weight. 74.03 74.03 7403.19 Cast & Proof Machined. (iii) Castings not otherwise specified, C. Viz. Cast Rod (unwro-ught) Plate, Bush, etc. not worked upon subsequently. 74.10 7410.00 1.2 The Assistant Collector modified classification in respect of Item B(i) and C and approved the classification list on 15-12-1986. The appellants (respondents herein) thereafter filed an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 in details and to that extent it is not in order. This, therefore, calls for re-examination with reference to any processing undertaken for the purpose of proper classification". 1.3 At this stage, learned JDR, however, points out that the Revenue contests that these observations do not pertain to Item B(ii) i.e. cast copper rods other than brass. In their view, this could never be an issue before the Collector (Appeals) inasmuch as the tariff heading for this item was never modified by the Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original and, therefore, there could be no grievance of the respondent herein to file appeal against that item. However, the learned Advocate Shri S.K. Roy Choudhury at this stage itself draws our attention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification list but did not classify the product B(ii) which was the subject matter of dispute and as directed by the Collector (Appeals) was required to be classified in de novo proceedings. The respondent herein thereafter again filed an appeal against the de novo order dated 12-6-1987 (16-6-1987). The Collector (Appeals) accepting the plea of the respondent and on the basis of the manufacturing process set out by the Assistant Collector classified the product "cast copper rods other than brass as described under Item B(ii)" as falling under sub-heading 7410.00 i.e. as unwrought cast copper rods. This is against this classification of the lower appellate authority that the Revenue has filed this appeal. 1.6 One of the grounds of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been set out by the Collector. 3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides We are inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondents The argument that the respondents have not challenged the classification of cast rods of brass cannot unsettle the process of manufacture as stated by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 12-6-1987 ( 16-6-1987). This argument does not hold water because the question of filing an appeal and not filing an appeal is a matter entirely within the discretion of the respondents. We have to go by the process of manufacture as set out by the Assistant Collector. Keeping in view the process undertaken by the respondents not going beyond the stage of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
