1989 (12) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that these 'Rough castings' fall under T.I. 25 of the C.E.T. and they are totally exempt from the Central Excise duty. Such iron rolls are supplied to re-rollers to use such castings in their factories after completing certain further processes as per design at their end. These castings in the appellants' factory undergo only partial machining to remove the surface defects on the main body of the rolls. No doubt fine machining is also done on certain portion of the castings, namely; the collar portions which are about 3-1/2" on either side of the rolls but this surface machining and fine machining of the collar do not covert the casting to any different form, nor does it transfrom it into a different identifiable product such as, machine p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... certain defects like roughness, cracks, damages etc. He further could not dispute that the fine machining had been done only to the collars of the rolls and that these rolls had to undergo further fine machining and grooving before they could be used as parts of the machines. He however stressed that the goods should be assessed under T.I.68 of the C.E.T. and cited a case reported in 1977(1) E.L.T. J-26 (Supreme Court) in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. State of Mysore, wherein 'Mamties, pick axes, sledge hammers, shovels & ploughs made out of pre-excise stocks of iron & steel products which had not been born any excise duty at all could not be assessed to duty under T.1.26AA of C.E.T. He drew attention of the Bench about differenc....