2000 (10) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Tariff Heading (TH) 73.25 while the assessees claim it under TH 84.37. 2. During the above period, the assessees (respondents) were engaged in the manufacture of CI articles. Central Excise (Anti-evasion) officers, who visited the respondents' factory on 24-8-1996, noticed that they had cleared for home consumption CI castings (unmachined) during the above period without payment of duty and that, in doing so, they considered the goods as flour mill parts classifiable under TH 84.37 and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 56/95-CE dated 16-3-1995. The officers also worked out the amount of duty allegedly evaded by the party in making the above clearances of the goods, which stood at Rs. 38,362/-. On....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessees was accepted with approval by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who accordingly, set aside the order of the AC. Hence, the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Examined the records and heard both sides. 4. Ld. SDR Shri K. K. Goel reiterated the grounds of the appeal. He submitted that the clearance of the goods effected by the respondents during the relevant period was not against any approved classification list. The classification list subsequently filed by the party under Rule 173B declaring their products as parts of machines was approved by the proper officer modifying the classification as under TH 73.25. The demand of duty was raised in accordance with such classification. The show-cause notice containing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and, argued that the decision in Shivaji Works was per incuriam inasmuch as (according to him) the relevant HSN explanatory notes had not been taken into account by the Tribunal in rendering that decision. Relying on HSN notes, ld. Advocate argued that the product in question was more of the nature of machine part than of mere castings and, therefore, it was appropriately classifiable under TH 84.37. Ld. Advocate, further, submitted that the lower appellate authority did not address the classification issue properly. He prayed that the matter be remanded in the event of the Revenue's appeal not being rejected. 7. We have carefully examined the rival submissions. We note that the main issue involved in this case pertains to classific....