TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se-cuw-demand notice issued by the Range Superintendent. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reviewed the order and on 4-2-1984, he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and ordered payment of the Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 1,71,242.51 P. He held that the process of teeth-cutting, brought into existence a new item which was altogether different in shape and size as against the raw materials and the process of manufacture was complete under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants had preferred this appeal. On behalf of the Appellants Mr. Gopal Prasad, Consultant, argued that the Appellants received raw material, namely, machined blanks , for crude tee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was a manufacture, according to the learned Consultant, it was only a mere job-work and the excise duty demanded was not justified. Mr. K.V. Kunhikrishnan, JDR, appearing for the department, stated that once the teeth cutting was done, a major part of the processes was complete and an identifiable machine part had come into existence. According to him, the goods manufactured by the Appellants attracted duty. There was no question of time-bar as the order comes into force only from the date of communication. 3. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by both the parties. 4. On the present facts, we are of opinion that the Appellants could not be held to have manufactured goods attracting duty. The Appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in view of the contentions raised by Appellants, we are of the view that the goods machined blank are not machine parts ready to use in order to attract duty. 5. We may also mention that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1113, held that forgings remain forgings even after machining. In the case of M/s. Taia Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1122 the Tribunal held that iron castings after machining continued to remain under Item 25 and not Item 68. The Five Member Special Bench in M/s. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. (P) Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, [Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
