TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri K.M. Patwari, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The assessees manufactured goods described as "Triple Spur Gear Chain Pully Blocks". The classification claimed was under Sub-heading 8425 of the CETA, 1985. It appears from 1986 to 1991 this classification was approved by the Department. When similar classification lists were filed on 1-4-1991 and 26-7-1991, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ains could not perform the function of hoisting loads, and therefore upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Against this order the present appeal is filed. 2. We have heard Shri J.F. Pochkhanawala for the assessees and Shri K.M. Patwari for the revenue. 3. As we have observed above the show cause notices failed to give the logic as to the grounds on which the re-classification is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposal as also their subsequent action. The Tribunal in their judgment in the case of Aravali Forgings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 (Tribunal)] held that this burden on Revenue was not discharged by merely showing inapplicability of one of the competing entries. 4. Tested on the cited judgments we find that the very proposition of the revenue for re-clas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red pulleys which act only as guide and do not transmit any power. The fact that contested goods have gears is suggestive of its being a mechanism for transmission of power. Therefore the entry described under 84.83 obviously does not cover the contested goods. 6.  The finding of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) that in the absence of chains, the classification is required....