1999 (5) TMI 568 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal accepts appellants' classification of Aluminium and Zinc castings, setting aside impugned order.

SHANTI METAL WORKS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY

The Tribunal accepted the appellants' classification of Aluminium and Zinc castings under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90, based on the factual plea ... Adjudication - Remand Issues: Classification of Aluminium and Zinc castings under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90Analysis:1. Factual Plea and Classification Decision: The appellants claimed the classification of Aluminium and Zinc castings under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90, while the revenue argued for classification based on the machinery in which the parts made from the castings were used. The original adjudicating authority decided the classification based on the samples, stating that the castings had acquired the essential character of component parts and bore a brand name. This decision was made without rebutting the appellants' plea that they only removed unmachined or proof machined castings up to the stage of fettling.2. Legal Precedents and Arguments: The appellant's advocate referred to the case law of Shivaji Works and Another v. Collector of Central Excise, Pee Cee Casting (P) Limited v. Collector Central Excise, and Dhanman Precicast Private Limited v. C.C.E., Aurangabad to support the classification under Tariff Heading 7616.90 for aluminium castings. The advocate argued that the factual plea of the appellants was not rebutted by the authorities and should be accepted based on previous judgments.3. Opposing Contentions and Remand Request: The learned SDR argued that the lower authorities did not provide a finding on whether the castings were unmachined or proof machined, which prevented the application of the Shivaji Works judgment. He suggested remanding the case for a factual finding on the plea taken by the appellants.4. Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal acknowledged the categorical factual plea made by the appellants and noted the absence of a specific rebuttal by the lower authorities. Considering the age of the matters and lack of justification for remand, the Tribunal accepted that the castings were either unmachined or proof machined. As a result, the judgments cited by the appellant's advocate were deemed applicable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants.