1998 (5) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Chapter sub-heading 7208.00 (flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel.....). 2. When the matter was called none was present for the respondents despite notice. Since the appeal has been filed by the Department, it was decided to proceed with the matter on hearing the Departmental Representative. 3. Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR, narrated the facts leading to the present appeal. Respondents had filed classification list bearing No. 64/87 and had classified their forgings under sub-heading 7208.00 in respect of steel forgings and under sub-heading 7413.00 in respect of brass forgings. In the classification list the respondents had described the forgings as "forgings with rough appearance and large diamentional tolerance"....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ped pieces of forgings" and in the case of forged products manufactured by the respondents the said Circular was not applicable inasmuch as the products manufactured by the respondents were made as per specifications and drawings of the customers and the said products were in the shape of "final articles or iron and steel" and were having more dimension than the final product. As such, these products could not be called "roughly shaped pieces". Further, the products have the essential characteristics of finished products and were more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 7308.00. He relied on the Tribunal decision in Nag Bhushan Enterprises v. C.C.E. - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 507 in which it was held that goods manufactured to the specific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 7-5-1990 as well as Circular No. 25/89 had explicitly and categorically accepted this position. They, therefore, contended that the forged steel products manufactured by them would be classifiable only under Heading 7208. 7. We observe from the records that in the impugned order Collector (Appeals) has relied on the Board Circular No. 25/88 and observed that the Assistant Collector had failed to properly interpret the Board's Circular dated 25-8-1988. The Board Circular had clarified that in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in TISCO v. Union of India, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 and the Gujarat High Court judgment in Eschjay Industires v. Union of India, which held against recourse to Explanatory Notes so long as entries were ....