9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. The appellant is a manufacturer of forgings falling under Chapter Heading 72.08 of the Schedule to CETA. During the period 1986-87 and 1987-88 the appellants manufactured forgings of iron and steel on his own account and on job work also. The Departments allegation was that the appellant exceeded the limit of Rs. 15 lakhs under Notification No. 175/86 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector erred in. holding that the goods in question fall under Chapter Heading 7308.90. The contention was that they are rightly classifiable under 7208 as a pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel not elsewhere specified. It was contended that the Additional Collector decided the classification of goods under 7308.90 without any basis. 3. In appeal the Tribunal remanded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fall under 72.08 as the forgings were not worked beyond proof machining. The Tribunal directed him to follow the decisions in Aravali Forgings Others v. CCE, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 and the clarification issued by the Board in F.No. 1139/79/87-CX IV dated 4-6-1987 in the matter of classification of forgings while remanding the case for de novo consideration. The case was remanded for this limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the claimant. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The Tribunal remanded the matter in the earlier round of litigation with clear directions that the adjudicating authority should examine the evidence tendered by both the parties (Department and the Assessee) to establish that the appellant did not carry out any process beyond proof machining on the forgings. The Tribunal also directed that the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal is not go into the hypothetical question of the scope and binding nature of the notification and argued that the eligibility to the notifications should not be entertained at this stage. We agree with this contention of the ld. SDR. The Commissioner has rightly rejected the plea of applicability of Notifications 208/83 and 214/86. Since the remand order is fully complied with by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
