9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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 these forgings are cleared to various customers who undertake the process of turning, the milling, drilling, grooving on the goods cleared by the appellants. After doing these processes, the identifiable parts of automobiles come into existence. As the forgings cleared by the appellants are not used as such and the customers under take further processes, therefore, the same cannot be held to be parts of Automob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue 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 the goods cleared by the appellants are having specific part numbers, therefore, the same are classifiable as parts of automobiles. 5. In reply, the learned Counsel submitted that no doubt part numbers are given to the forgings as these are manufactured as per the design provided by their customers but these are not same parts numbers, which were given to the parts manufactured out of these forgings. The part numbers are only given to identif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 assessee-respondent. Its claim is that the articles fall under Tariff item 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, whereas the claim of the Department is that it falls under Item No. 87.08 as parts of motor vehicles, viz. 'gears and pinions'. The learned members of the Tribunal constituting majority were of the view that the goods in question were unmachined forgings and several processes have to be gone through before the articles were brought to required spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered 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 find that Notification No. 223/88 provides concessional rate of duty to the forgings and forged articles of steel provided that forgings are not subject to any machining or surface treatment other than removal of surface treatments of excess material. 10. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the appellants are only undertaking the process of removal of extra material by way of trimming, therefore, we find that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Tariff. The i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
