9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first of the two orders. 2. This dispute is in respect of Cast Iron and Cast Steel products cleared without payment of duty due under Item 68 during the period 1-1-1979 to 18-4-1979. Citing the decision of the Government of India in order No. 888/78 relating to Bharatya Electric Steel Co. Ltd. and some other judgments of the Supreme Court, the appellants contested the demand. However, the Assistant Collector decided that the cast iron and cast steel rolls were machined/polished after completion of such finishing process and were shaped/sized according to the specifications and orders of the customers and, therefore, the order of the Government that castings should be assessed, after the finishing process is completed i.e. the crudene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able parts of machineries. In view of his findings in an exactly similar appeal that the castings made and cleared by the appellants are classification under Item 68 and should be charged to duty (vide order in Appeal No. 427/BR/1980, dated 19-12-1980), he held that the Cast Iron Rolls are dutiable under item 68 ibid accordingly and rejected the appeal. 3. As mentioned earlier, a single Revision Application was filed against both these appeals. Shri Kohli had argued at length and we have dealt with the first appeal in some detail. The only difference between the two cases is that here there is mention of the cast iron rolls being "tinned and polished" apart from being machined. At the outset Shri Kohli clarified that there was no que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment the learned SDR stated that this was under appeal in the Supreme Court, hence it would not be binding on this all-India Tribunal. He relied on J.K. Steels v. ITO decided by the Allahabad High Court [(105) I.T.R. p. 64)]. He found fault with the order under challenge as the Appellate Collector relied on photographs, which was hardly a basis when machining to an accuracy of microns was involved. According to him, here the end shafts were finally finished and the rolls were identifiable machine parts. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran wanted the appeal to be rejected or in the alternative, for the order to be reserved pending a decision of the matter already before a larger Bench. 5. Shri Kohli, learned Counsel, referred to the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dural and does not help the appellants' case. After all, if a casting and a machine part are to bear duty under Items 25/26AA as well as 68, it is incumbent on the Department to fix the stage when the casting ceases to be this and becomes a machine part. As stated earlier even the authorities ordering recovery of duty have not specified the basis. We were informed that in the case of these goods, duty would not be payable by the final customer-user after finishing since they would be used for captive consumption and were exempted being assessable under Item 68. Shri Kohli argued that this would not be sufficient reason for recovering duty under Item 68 from the appellants who manufacture castings falling under Item 25 or 26AA. 7. Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
