TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (12) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and cleared by the appellants herein during the period 1-3-1986 to 21-7-1987. Appellants claim classification under Heading 72.08 while the Department has confirmed classification under Heading 73.08 as "other articles of iron or steel". 2. We have heard Shri R.C. Gupta, learned Counsel and Shri Mohamed Ali, learned DR. 3. The process of manufacture adopted by the appellants is briefly as under: The appellants purchased raw materials i.e. duty [paid] steel bars and rods and cut the same to required weight and sizes and thereafter heat them in furnaces at a temperature of approximately 1050. The hot pieces are thereafter put in the dies and hammering operation is done with the help of a hammer to get the required shape ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r `roughly shaped'. The Tribunal has held that a bare reading of the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 72 makes it clear that in order to exclude the goods from Heading 7208, the goods should have undergone the process of folding, assembling, welding, turning, milling or perforating, while it was the undisputed position in the appeals decided, that the goods had emerged at a stage just prior to machining. The Tribunal had also rejected the grounds assigned by the Revenue for excluding sub-heading 7208.00 before examining the inclusion of the goods under sub-heading 7308.90 of the CET, 1985 for the reason that the basis of invoking the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 72 was erroneous, as the respective tariff entries had not been aligned for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the customers." The appellant does not undertake the work of machining, polishing or any other finishing process in respect of such roughly shaped forged pieces of steel but the same are undertaken by the customers at their site/factory. The pieces roughly shaped by forging of steel removed by the appellant from its factory are thus admittedly in rough shape and are not ready for direct use in the factory of the customer. The appellant states that the pieces roughly shaped by forging of steel produced by the appellant are so produced as per the requirements of the customers who supply the appellant with specific designs and specifications. It is only in accordance therewith that the appellant produces the aforesaid goods. The pieces s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as their contention that the learned Principal Collector had erred in classifying the goods under 73.08 (instead of 72.08). Further, the Collector has failed to appreciate that prior to 1-3-1986, the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 25(8) and were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 and the Department having accepted this position, they could not fall outside the scope of Heading 72.08 since the tariff description for such goods has remained the same and there was no change in the process of manufacture. Furthermore, there was no evidence which would go to show that the goods had acquired the characteristics of automobile parts. In fact, he had himself come to the finding that they were unfinished, unpolished and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. He also accepted that the Tribunal has held in the case of Aravali Forgings Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reproted in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 that forgings of steel upto the stage of proof machining were not classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90. 12. Learned Counsel and other representatives of the appellants displayed the samples of the items poduced and showed both unmachined & unpolished pieces which the said pieces were their products and the machined and finished and polished pieces which are identifiable as motor vehicle parts and treated as such in order to demonstrate the contrast and also filed photographs thereof. 13. Ld. Counsel further stated that the items are not traded as motor vehicle parts and they are not known in t....