TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. Kang, Vice President]. - 1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the goods manufactured by the appellants were held to be classifiable under heading 87.08 and 84.03 as parts of the Automobiles. 2. The contention of appellant is that the goods in question are forgings and are classifiable under Chapter 7326.19 and entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 223/88 dated 23-6-1988. 3. The contention of appellant is that the goods in question are only forgings and forged products of steel and they are not identifiable as parts of automobiles. The appellants are only undertaking the process of forging and only removes the excess material by way of trimming. The contention is that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both the cases, there is no change in the form of the product. The contention is that in these circumstances, the goods in question are classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff and entitled for the benefit of Notification. 4. The contention of revenue is that the goods in question attain the approximate shape and outline of the parts of the automobile and therefore, are classifiable as automobile parts. The revenue also relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. CC, Madras reported in 1987 (28) EL.T, 545. The learned SDR also relied upon Rule 2(a) of Interpretation Rules to submit that the goods in question are parts of automobile. The contention of revenue is also that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaking the process of removal of excess material from the forgings. The other important operations such as turning, drilling, grinding etc. are undertaken by the customers. The Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Forges v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 49 held that forgings and forged articles of alloy steel after chipping of excess material are classifiable as forging. The revenue filed appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the appeal reported as CCE v. Jaypee Forges reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 560. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "In this appeal the only issue relates to the correct classification of the products in question which are described as forgings and forged articles of alloy steel by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat a similar view was taken by the Tribunal in Sikka Heat Treatment Industry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 628 and that order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court vide 1997 (94) E.L.T. 5 ( Veekay Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi ). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to overcome the above precedent by contending that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretation Rules was not considered by the Tribunal in the aforementioned case; but, as we observed supra, in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal there is no scope to invoke the Rule that is sought to be relied upon. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs." 9. Further we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
