TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iff Heading 7208 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : The petitioner is a firm which inter alia manufactures roughly shaped pieces by forging iron or steel. These are semi finished products. They have a rough appearance and require considerable further work to be done to them before they assure the shape of finished products usable for the required purposes. From 1-3-1986 onwards the petitioner is classifying and clearing the said products under Chapter Heading 7208 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986. Under Notification No. 208/1983 final products falling under 7208 are exempted from duty if they were made from goods of specified description. The petitioner's prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. With prejudice to the said objection, it is stated that the petitioner's products are made according to specification of the customers and the end products are delivered to the respective customers. Therefore, the interpretation and contentions of the petitioner are not valid and the product of the petitioner cannot be classified under Tariff Heading 7208 and is righly classified under Tariff Heading 7308.90. It is further stated that the product of the petitioner is according to specification. Considering the nature of the product the respondent have correctly classified the same under Heading 7308.90. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. Sriram Penolu, lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avit it is specifically stated that the petitioner has a right to file a statutory appeal to the Tribunal as per Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act. It is also stated by her, since the remedy is effective remedy especially when the question relates to classification of goods in support of her contention she very much relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kerala v. P. Kesavan & Co., [1996 (81) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.)]. 8. In that decision the principal question is whether the strapping is a fabric made from rayon yarn or not. After noting that no material was placed before the Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petitions, their Lordships have observed : "...In view th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rits thereof." Even though Mr. Sriram Penolu, learned Senior Counsel has demonstrated that the product in question are semi-finished products, they have rough appearance and require considerable further work to be done by the producers before they assume the shape of finished products usable for the required purposes, as observed by their Lordships, in the interest of both parties, I am of the view that the matter has to be considered by the Tribunal as per Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act. No doubt, the above writ petition is kept pending for nearly 10 years and it may not be justified in asking the party to approach the appellate authority. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, I am constrained to direct the petitioner ....