1999 (10) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M/s. Nattoji Industries, the appellants had argue before the Collector (Appeals) that their products could not be considered as parts of machinery or components of machinery and they are in fact cast articles classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7616.90. They had contended that the cardinal principle of interpretation of the Tariff entries was that the items should be understood in the manner they are understood by the people who deal in the product. They were selling their product as castings and even the orders received by them were for manufacture of casting and they are also commercially understood as casting. The Collector (Appeals) had however, rejected their submissions and confirmed the Assistant Collector's order holding that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which require identifiable shape of various articles have to be classified thereunder and not under the headings of the metals. Collector (Appeals) found that the impugned products manufactured by M/s. Shanti Metal Works are semi-finished articles having essential characteristics of finished articles. 3. We have heard Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Advocate for the appellants, and Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR for the Department. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants M/s. Nattoji Industries were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium castings, zinc castings and metal boxes classifiable under Chapters 76, 79 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In respect of aluminium castings, they claim only rate of dut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hinery parts only after certain further processes were carried out by the intermediateries. Further, the only process carried out by the appellants was to pour the metal into moulds and after cooling, they were taken out as castings. The appellants had also to remove the runners, overflows and flash the castings they were manufacturing. The items therefore, were not machinery parts nor were they commercially understood as machinery parts. Reliance was placed in this connection on Tribunal's decision in BHEL Ancillary v. U.O.I. [1990 (49) E.L.T. 33] as also the decision in Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1994 (69) E.L.T. 674]. In the said case a question arose as to whether castings manufactured by the appellant had acquired the form of parts ....