Proof-machining verification governed notification eligibility for castings and spacer rings, with prior hearing records found unusable on remand.

The note addresses eligibility for Notification No. 275/88-C.E. for SG iron castings and spacer rings where proof-machining was disputed. It states that the remand was confined to an independent verification of whether proof-machining had been carried out on the identified goods, and that the adjudicating authority could not rely on the earlier personal hearing record after that material had already been challenged before the higher forum. On that factual basis, the goods were treated as not proof-machined and the notification benefit was held available to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. was available to SG Iron castings and Spacer rings on the finding that no proof-machining was carried out on those goods.

Analysis: The remand was limited to verifying whether proof-machining had been carried out on the two identified products. The lower authorities conducted physical verification, but the adjudication proceeded by relying on the record of personal hearing from the earlier round, despite that material having already been challenged before the higher forum. Since the remand called for an independent verification on the specific factual issue, reliance on the earlier personal hearing record was not open to the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be not proof-machined and, therefore, eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 275/88-C.E., in favour of the assessee.

---