TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. Shri V.K. Suman, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - This appeal was argued by Shri K.A. Sindhi, Consultant and the revenue was represented by Shri K.M. Patwari. 2. The assessees manufactured various articles of copper including cast articles of copper. Heading 74.19 reproduced below covered such cast articles: "74.19 -  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading 7419.91 and claiming the benefit of the cited notifications. The departmental officers found that the assessee was undertaking proof machining on some of the castings. It was observed that after such proof machining the castings would fall under sub-heading 7419.99 and therefore, would not fall in the purview of the exemption notifications. In the belief that duty was evaded by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered under the general description given in the notification. During pendency of the notification therefore, there was no loss of revenue. With the supersession of this notification, the exemption by virtue of Notification No. 178/88 became restrictive in nature, inasmuch as it specified only 7419.91 and did not cover sub-heading 7419.99. Once the casting was subjected to proof machining they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regards machined castings or copper there was a long history of dispute between the assessees and the department. Under the old tariff prior to 1986, the department had claimed that such goods would merit classification under T.H. No. 68 and not under 26A. The Collector when passing the order dated 27-1-1987 had gone through the process and had also examined the samples, before ruling that proof....