TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals filed by M/s. Ajay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. In both these appeals as common issues are involved for our consideration they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The matter relates to the classification of forgings, which the appellants were manufacturi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;Shri P.K. Jain, SDR appearing for the respondents/Revenue referred to the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad and reiterated the observations of the Appellate Authority. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order had recorded as under :- "To know the correct position, nature and the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been machined. Without precision machining, the forged products could not be considered as a part of machinery. In the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported at 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (SC), M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO) were engaged in the manufacture of forged products for railways. The goods were supplied to the railways in rough machined condition under which excess stee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r had stated that the forgings manufactured by the process of die forgings were subject to pro- cesses like skin cutting and proof machining. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TISCO, referred to above, the process upto proof machining will not take the forged product beyond the purview of forgings as such. 7. In the case of Jaypee Forgers v. CCE, Bombay reported at 1996 (....