9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period, the matter had been remanded to the lower authority for reconsideration of eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 275/88, dated 4-11-1988. 2. Heard Shri S. Kannan, ld. JDR who submits that Revenue is aggrieved with the said decision as the eligibility of the Notification namely 202/88 or 223/88 is to be decided with reference to the classification of these castings by applying interpretative Rule 2(a). Revenue contends that the classification of these castings should along with final machine parts and Notification No. 223/88 prescribes effective rates for such castings under Headings 73, 84, 85, 86 and 87 therefore these articles would not fall under 7325.10 and Notification No. 202/88 would not apply in their case. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out on them by the manufacturer and they are undergone only processses such as heat treatment, scrapping and fettling. Ld. Advocate submits that this is clearly applicable to their case and therefore their product would be classifiable under 73.25. Having done so, the exemption under Notification No. 202/88 supra would be available. Ld. Advocate further submits that the facts in his case are clearly covered by the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. as reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 519 (Tri.). which in turn, has followed the earlier judgment in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. as reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 (Tri.) wherein it had been held that castings of machine parts/motor vehicle parts would fall under Heading 73.25 and not under Chapters 84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption contained therein is clearly applicable to the goods in question. Once the applicability of the Notification 202/88 is not excluded, then the choice between this notification and Notification No. 223/88 clearly lies with the assessee and the assessee has clearly chosen the Notification 202/88. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in this choice as per the legal position analysed above. Similarly, for the subsequent period, the matter is already under remand to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and therefore, no views are need to be expressed by us at this stage. 5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that there is no merit in the Revenue s appeal and the same is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
