9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vice-President]. Briefly stated facts of the case are :- Appellants are manufacturing Aluminium and Zinc castings. They claimed the classification under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90. Revenue was, however, of the view that these are to be classified under different chapters depending upon the machinery in which parts made out of such castings were used. 1.1 A very specific plea had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch parts are to be used. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao has submitted that the finding of the adjudicating authority does not rebut the factual plea of the appellants that the castings of aluminium and zinc which are disputed before us were either unmachined or machined only up to the stage of proof machining. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CBEC vide its Circular No. 225/59/96-CX, dated 1-7-1996 reported at 1996 (85) E.L.T. Page T-43. Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the appeals be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR Shri R.D. Negi submits that the lower authorities have not actually given a finding whether the castings are unmachined or they are machi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fact that they are machined, plea before the lower authorities has to be accepted. In that view, he prays for allowing the appeals. 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced by both sides. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao that a very categorical factual plea had been taken by the appellants before the lower authorities but instead of dealing w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
