Castings versus machine parts: classification turns on machining, and Revenue must prove disguised clearance with evidence.

Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule cannot displace the specific classification of castings by treating them as machine parts merely because of design, shape, form, or alleged essential character. Castings remain classifiable as castings unless and until they are machined. On the facts, the assessee showed it manufactured both castings and machine parts and paid duty when machine parts were cleared, while the Revenue relied mainly on one invoice and produced no further material, investigation, or customer evidence to show that castings were actually machine parts. The Revenue therefore failed to establish clearance of machine parts in the guise of castings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods cleared by the assessee were castings or machine parts, and whether the Revenue had proved that machine parts were being cleared in the guise of castings.

Analysis: Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act could not be used to displace the specific classification of castings by treating them as machine parts merely on the basis of design, shape, form, or alleged essential character. Castings remained classifiable as castings unless and until they were machined. On the factual issue, the record showed that the assessee had been manufacturing both castings and machine parts and had paid duty whenever machine parts were cleared. The Revenue relied essentially on one invoice and did not produce any further material, investigation, or customer evidence to establish that all clearances described as castings were machine parts.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the assessee cleared machine parts in the guise of castings, and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.

---