1997 (11) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nunthuk, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  This appeal arises from order-in-original, dated 31-10-1989 passed by Addl. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi informing the duty demand of Rs. 3,57,094.50 and also imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants have manufactured forged products and had cleared the same under Heading 7208.00 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1985 cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the same. 2. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that the issue, is no longer res integra and the matter has been looked into in great detail by the Tribunal in number of judgments as in the case of M/s. Araveli Forgings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur as reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 which decided the cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s were referred in the case of S.S. Miranda Ltd. & Another v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 634 (Tribunal) = 1997 (73) ECR 97. He submits that the items removed by the appellants were in forged conditions and they had not acquired the essential characteristic of an article and all other processes were carried out by the buyers. He also submits that the departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed goods pertains to the period prior to 1-3-1988 and the same has been considered in these judgments referred to by ld. Advocate. In all the citations, the Tribunal has gone into great detail with regard to the classification of forged items and also with regard to the applicability of Rule 2(a) of the interpretative rules and has also considered the earlier judgments of the Tribunal, High Court ....