TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (6) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asting, these are subjected to proof machining so as to remove the surface defects. Thereafter, the product is sold on weight basis to various rolling mills who subject them to further machining and cutting of wovals as per their requirements and convert them into parts of machinery falling under Item 68. 3. The appellants had submitted classification list No. 45/79 effective from 9-4-1979 declaring such iron cast chilled rolls, erroneously classifying the product as steel castings and the same had been approved by the Assistant Collector. The appellants were also paying duty under item 68 after the said casting was subjected to proof machining as directed by the central excise authorities vide classification list No. 45/79. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... items liable to duty under Item No. 68 as already approved vide classification list No. 58/79, dated 2-5-1979. 11. As per Order-in-Original No. 3/82, dated 8-1-1982 also, their refund claim was rejected. Vide Order-in-Original No. 4/82, dated 8-1-1982 also, their refund claims were rejected. Feeling aggrieved, they filed the following appeals before the Collector (Appeals) : (1) 427-CE/APPL/DLH/81 (2) 192-CE/APPL/DLH/82 (3) 191-CE/APPL/DLH/82 12. Learned Collector (Appeals) decided the above appeals by a single order. He rejected the petitioners' Appeal No. 191-CE/APPL/DLH/82 filed with reference to Order-in-Original No. 4/82, dated 8-1-1982 but remanded the matters relating to appeal Nos. 427-CE/APPL/DLH/81 and 192-CE/APPL/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eat treatment, scraping and fettling to remove surface defects or excess material by grinding, chipping etc. and that even proof machine castings remain such castings, he would like to cite the following orders :- (1) Paramount Centrispun Castings Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 705 (Tribunal). (2) G.O.I. v. Grand Iron Works reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 487. (3) Tata Yodogwa Ltd. v. Asstt. Collr. of C. Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 17 (Pat.). (4) Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal). (5) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Bombay v. CC, Bombay reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1122. (6) Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1113. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of an earlier period which had already been cleared. Hence, the approval of classification list 31/80 was required to be upheld and the collected refund claim could only said to have been rightly rejected by the A.C. 17. As regards the classification of chilled roll under Item 68, it may be mentioned that the A.C. had visited the factory and seen the manufacturing processes and then recorded his findings. However, the learned Collector (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the A.C. to examine the factual position more elaborately and thereafter, reconsider the matter keeping in view the time bar aspect and therefore, there was no reason to interfere with this order at this stage. 18. In the case of Metrowork Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibed period of time. However, in both the above respects, the question before us is that of application of these principles to the facts of the case before us. 22. We find that insofar as the period prior to approval of classification list 31/80 is concerned, the appellants' refund claim has been rightly rejected as the Chemical Examiner's test report cannot be applied retrospectively with reference to the goods which had already, in the meanwhile, been cleared on the basis of approved classification list and the description therein. 23. The order of the Collector (Appeals) rejecting the Appeal No. 191/82 is therefore, required to be upheld. 24. Similarly, insofar as the order of Collector (Appeals) relates to Appeal No. 4....