9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates, for the appellant. Mohd. T.M. Youseff, Senior Advocate (Rupesh Kumar, P. Sureshan and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates, with him) for the respondent. [Order]. - The present appeal has been filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") impugning the Final Order No. 925/2000-B, dated 20th June, 2000 in Appeal No. E/2677/94-B passed by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant. 2.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Malleable Cast Iron (MCI) inserts. These inserts are meant for the manufacture of concrete sleepers for exclusive use by the Indian Railways. The assessee-appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority, is under challenge in the present appeal. 4.Heard counsel appearing for the assessee as well as for the department. 5.Without going into the other facts, it may be stated that the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Gas and Industries Limited v. C.C.E., Vadodara [1996 (88) E.L.T. 413 (T)] laid down the test that the inserts required a precision machining to come out of the exemption notification. The Tribunal in the said judgment in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 observed, thus : Before the introduction of the new Tariff"7. from 1-3-1986, these Inserts were classified as Castings of Iron and Steel. They were not being classified under Tariff Item 68 of the Tariff. In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported at 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hapter 72 It is also seen that the matter is covered9. by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad reported at 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal). The ld. JDR have also referred to the Board's Circular No. 225/59/96-CX, dated 1-7-1996, which had been issued by the Board after the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. referred to above. The Board's clarification also supports the case of the appellants." In the aforesaid case, it was held by the Tribunal that the inserts did not require any precision machining and, therefore the inserts produced by the assessees were entitled to the exemption provided in Notification No. 208/83-C.E. The notifications in the present case with which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department having accepted the principle laid therein to the effect that the inserts did not require any precision machining or that any such machining was done by the appellant, cannot be permitted to take a stand different than the principles laid down in the earlier case. 8.The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Gas Industries case (supra), amongst other decisions, was relied upon by the assessee before the Tribunal as noticed by the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 10 and dealt with in Paragraph No. 12 of the impugned Final Order, the Tribunal held that this case has no applicability to the present case. The Tribunal has, in fact, not deliberated on the said decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal and, without e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
