TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. They have filed classification list from time to time and the same has been approved. They claimed classification under Chapter Heading 73.26 which was approved by the department. It is also the contention of the appellants that these extruded/forged products have been classified as iron and steel only after the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into existence on 1-3-1986. These products were being classified under TI 26AA(1)(a) of the first schedule to Section 3 of the CEA, 1944. It is their contention that while classification lists were being approved certain proceedings were initiated by the AC, Central Excise, seeking to classify the products manufactured by the appellants as components falling under Tariff Item 68/Chapter Headings 84/85/86/87 and 89 as the case may be. They had filed various voluminous documents and also filed write up with regard to manufacturing process in respect of each of the item in respect of which classification had been disputed in the said proceedings and these proceedings are pending before the appellate authority or are pending after being remanded to the original authority. It is stated that inspection of the factory was done by the Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts have been supplied to the Army or for manufacture of oil engines. The appellants had time and again made submissions in the case. Thereafter the appellants were issued with a letter dated 12-2-1994 informing them that the Collector in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would decide the matter pending before the AC in respect of the four show cause notices. That is how the four show cause notices were taken up for decision in the matter by the Collector. 3. The Collector noted that the Mc Graw Hill Dictionary of Scientific Terms defines "process of extrusion of cold metal is variously termed as cold pressing, cold forging, cold extrusion, forming extrusion, pressing and impact extrusion. The other names for the process of cold extrusion include impact extrusion, extrusion forging, cold forging, extrusion processing and heavy cold forming. He also held that the product manufactured by the appellants is through the process of cold extrusion. He noted that Notification 223/88 dated 23-6-1988 exempts forging and forged articles from duty as in excess of 12.5% adv. He rejected the claim of the appellants that extrusion process is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion one and the same process. He has also noted that in the delivery challans prepared by the manufacturer, described the process as cold extrusion and hence they are interchangable and therefore, they are different and not covered by the Notification. He has rejected the judgment rendered by the Tribunal produced by the appellants more particularly the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of C.C.E. v. Metal Impact vide Final Order No. E/43 & 44/94-B1 in Appeal No. E/1457/85-B wherein on examination of the Technical literature the Tribunal held that forging and cold extrusion are one and same process and in this regard relied upon the Technical literature and thus confirmed the Collector's order and dismissed the Revenue appeal. The Collector has noted that the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis of meaning given in the Dictionary/Encyclopedia and had observed that extrusion is another form of forging and has observed that he is unable to persuade himself to subscribe to the view that forging and cold extrusion are one and the same and that the issue is entirely unrelated to application of Notification 223/88, dated 23-6-1988. He further noted that already the appellants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is totally a non-speaking one. They submitted that the HSN refers to forging by drop hammers or on forging presses. But the manufacturing process is different inasmuch as it comes out in continuous form. They also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal including that of Sikka Heat Treatment Centre v. C.C.E., New Delhi, a larger bench decision reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal) which approves the earlier detailed judgment in the case of Aravali Forgings Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1994 (70) 693 wherein the Tribunal noted that the Board's circular and the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the other judgments noted to what extent the manufacturing activity can be considered as forging. It is stated that in the present case, the Collector has not wilfully followed these judgments and has rejected the claim of the appellants based on his understanding to reject the contention of the appellants that cold extrusion is also forging. The main ground of dispute is that even the Collector has failed to take up the aspect of classification of all the 44 items to the respective headings under Chapters 84, 85, 86, 87 and 89 which on logical conclusion the Collector ought to have ....