1998 (1) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The single issue for the decision in this case is whether the Rough Aluminium Castings manufactured by the assessees merited classification under Heading 7611.00 or whether they were identifiable parts of certain machines falling under Chapter 84. The Adjudicating Collector while admitting that certain further processes were required to be carried out on such castings before they were put to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judgment in the case of Tata Yudogawa Ltd. reported in 1983 E.L.T. 17, the Patna High Court held that steel castings were classifiable under Item 26 AA(v) and did not convert into identifiable parts of machinery even after moulding and polishing. The Tribunal in their judgment in the case of CC v. HPCL reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 664 held that rough castings, crankshafts or wheels could not be ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. v. CC, Aurangabad would squarely apply to this issue [1994 (69) E.L.T. 674]. The Tribunal held that castings were articles recognised in the market separately from parts of machinery or motor vehicle. It was held that the tariff heading would include all castings from the stage of their emergence from the casting mould the stage of being proof machined. In holding so, the Tribunal had taken c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X