9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-alloy steel.....). 2. When the matter was called none was present for the respondents despite notice. Since the appeal has been filed by the Department, it was decided to proceed with the matter on hearing the Departmental Representative. 3. Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR, narrated the facts leading to the present appeal. Respondents had filed classification list bearing No. 64/87 and had classified their forgings under sub-heading 7208.00 in respect of steel forgings and under sub-heading 7413.00 in respect of brass forgings. In the classification list the respondents had described the forgings as forgings with rough appearance and large diamentional tolerance . 4. Department issued a SCN asking the respondents to show as to why st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents the said Circular was not applicable inasmuch as the products manufactured by the respondents were made as per specifications and drawings of the customers and the said products were in the shape of final articles or iron and steel and were having more dimension than the final product. As such, these products could not be called roughly shaped pieces . Further, the products have the essential characteristics of finished products and were more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 7308.00. He relied on the Tribunal decision in Nag Bhushan Enterprises v. C.C.E. - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 507 in which it was held that goods manufactured to the specifications of purchasers and as per drawings are to be treated as `component parts of mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position. They, therefore, contended that the forged steel products manufactured by them would be classifiable only under Heading 7208. 7. We observe from the records that in the impugned order Collector (Appeals) has relied on the Board Circular No. 25/88 and observed that the Assistant Collector had failed to properly interpret the Board s Circular dated 25-8-1988. The Board Circular had clarified that in view of the Hon ble Apex Court decision in TISCO v. Union of India, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 and the Gujarat High Court judgment in Eschjay Industires v. Union of India, which held against recourse to Explanatory Notes so long as entries were not aligned with the HSN. The said broad ratio of both the decisions on castings would be applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
