9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) that their products could not be considered as parts of machinery or components of machinery and they are in fact cast articles classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7616.90. They had contended that the cardinal principle of interpretation of the Tariff entries was that the items should be understood in the manner they are understood by the people who deal in the product. They were selling their product as castings and even the orders received by them were for manufacture of casting and they are also commercially understood as casting. The Collector (Appeals) had however, rejected their submissions and confirmed the Assistant Collector s order holding that the goods manufactured by the appellants even though in the nature of semi-finis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reunder and not under the headings of the metals. Collector (Appeals) found that the impugned products manufactured by M/s. Shanti Metal Works are semi-finished articles having essential characteristics of finished articles. 3. We have heard Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Advocate for the appellants, and Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR for the Department. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants M/s. Nattoji Industries were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium castings, zinc castings and metal boxes classifiable under Chapters 76, 79 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In respect of aluminium castings, they claim only rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 180/88 and in respect of zinc castings, they claimed benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, the only process carried out by the appellants was to pour the metal into moulds and after cooling, they were taken out as castings. The appellants had also to remove the runners, overflows and flash the castings they were manufacturing. The items therefore, were not machinery parts nor were they commercially understood as machinery parts. Reliance was placed in this connection on Tribunal s decision in BHEL Ancillary v. U.O.I. [1990 (49) E.L.T. 33] as also the decision in Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1994 (69) E.L.T. 674]. In the said case a question arose as to whether castings manufactured by the appellant had acquired the form of parts of machines though their customers were indicating further processes such as turning, dril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 84. They were therefore, correctly classifiable as parts of such machines by virtue of Rule 2 (a) of the Rules of Interpretation read with Section Note 1(f) to Section XV and Section Note 4 of Section XVI. 6. We have considered the submissions. We find identical questions had been considered by the Tribunal in the present appellant s own case in Final Order Nos. 546-547/99-B1, dated 12-5-1999. In that case the adjudicating authority without rebutting the factual position that the casting of aluminium and zinc were unmachined or machined had held the items to be classifiable as parts of machinery. The Tribunal had allowed the Appeal against the said order. It was also noted that the earlier Tribunal decision in Shivaji Works (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
