1997 (8) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epicted the description of the goods, headings and sub-headings as below :   Copper and Articles there of No. (Chapter -74)   Heading No. Sub-heading   A.CASTINGOT   74.01 7401.00   B. CASTROD   74.03 7403.00   (i) of Brass (Zinc Content 5% and above)         (ii) Other than brass (i.e. Gun Metal Phos-Bronze, Aluminium Bronze, Cadmium Copper etc.) having Copper Content 85% or more by weight. 74.03 74.03 7403.19   Cast & Proof Machined.         (iii) Castings not otherwise specified,         C. Viz. Cast Rod (unwro-ught) Plate, Bush, etc. not wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ticle to qualify for classification under Heading No. 74.03 has to be wrought Bars and Rods (including wire rod) within the meaning assigned to it. Asstt. Collector's order has not justified its classification under Heading No. 74.03 sub-heading No. 7403.19 in details and to that extent it is not in order. This, therefore, calls for re-examination with reference to any processing undertaken for the purpose of proper classification". 1.3 At this stage, learned JDR, however, points out that the Revenue contests that these observations do not pertain to Item B(ii) i.e. cast copper rods other than brass. In their view, this could never be an issue before the Collector (Appeals) inasmuch as the tariff heading for this item was never modi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stion has crossed the crude stage." [Emphasis supplied by the learned Advocate for the respondents] 1.5 However, on the basis of the aforesaid inspection report, the Assistant Collector classified the product declared at B(i) as mentioned above in the classification list but did not classify the product B(ii) which was the subject matter of dispute and as directed by the Collector (Appeals) was required to be classified in de novo proceedings. The respondent herein thereafter again filed an appeal against the de novo order dated 12-6-1987 (16-6-1987). The Collector (Appeals) accepting the plea of the respondent and on the basis of the manufacturing process set out by the Assistant Collector classified the product "cast copper rods o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthority. The ground taken by the Revenue is not correct inasmuch as it is for the assessee to file an appeal or not to file an appeal against any particular classification but that does not mean that they have accepted the process of manufacture different from what has been set out by the Collector. 3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides We are inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondents The argument that the respondents have not challenged the classification of cast rods of brass cannot unsettle the process of manufacture as stated by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 12-6-1987 ( 16-6-1987). This argument does not hold water because the question of filing a....