TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r specific drawings and description supplied by the buyers/customers. The respondents had filed classification lists w.e.f. 1-3-1987 under Chapter sub-heading No. 7208.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 as amended at Nil rate of duty. The said goods have been subjected to various processes such as felting, cleaning, heat treatment, dimension corrections, ultrasonic testing, machining for dimensioning and correcting. The said goods after undergoing such processes acquire specific name and shape, which an article/component may require. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Dvn. I, Rajkot vide his order of approval dated 30-6-1987 had modified and approved the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the classification list dated 9-3-1986 (Annexure C to the petition) are quashed and set aside. In view of the subsequent orders passed by the Collector and in view of what we have observed above, it is not necessary to grant any relief with respect to the two letters written by the Superintendent on 9-6-1987 and 16-6-1987 Annexure-D and Annexure-G respectively. As we are quashing the orders dated 30-6-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector, as a necessary consequence to the show cause-demand-notice dated 6-7-1987 Annexure-L and letter dated 6-7-1987 Annexure-M are also quashed. The rule is accordingly made absolute to the above extent only, with no orders as to costs. The Assistant Collector shall now proceed further with the process of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dabad allowed the respondents' appeal by setting aside the said order-in-original dated 18-3-1994 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 426/95 (154-Raj) CE/Collr/(A)/Ahd., dated 31-8-1995 issued on 12-9-1995 on the ground of limitation of time under Section 11A of CESA, 1944 and on the basis of Hon'ble CEGAT's decision in the case of M/s. Aravali Forging Ltd. & Others - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 (Tribunal). 4. Shri D. Gurnani, the ld. DR for the Appellant Commissioner submitted that the issue relates to whether the articles manufactured by the respondents would be classifiable as forged articles under Heading 72.08 as claimed by the respondents or whether they are to be classified as other articles of steel under H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 10-11-1981 has also been considered in Aravali Forgings Ltd. decision of the Tribunal which has been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals). On limitation also the ld. Counsel pointed out that the Gujarat High Court has quashed the show cause notice issued earlier by the department and this cannot be revived by the Asstt. Commissioner on adjudication of the matter in terms of the High Court direction. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. On merits, the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the Tribunal decision in the case of Aravali Forgings Ltd. (supra). In the said decision the Tribunal has considered in great detail the process involved like trimmings, annealing, tempering, inspection and shot blasting of the forge....