TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri R.D. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice-President]. - Briefly stated facts of the case are :- Appellants are manufacturing Aluminium and Zinc castings. They claimed the classification under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90. Revenue was, however, of the view that these are to be classified under different chapters depending upon the machinery in which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods are classifiable under the various Chapters relating to the machinery in which such parts are to be used. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao has submitted that the finding of the adjudicating authority does not rebut the factual plea of the appellants that the castings of aluminium and zinc which are disputed before us were either unmachined or machined only up to the stage of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein it is reported that the Tribunal judgment in the case of Shivaji Works has been accepted by the CBEC vide its Circular No. 225/59/96-CX, dated 1-7-1996 reported at 1996 (85) E.L.T. Page T-43. Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the appeals be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR Shri R.D. Negi submits that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the castings in question are being manufactured or not. He again emphasises the fact that though a specific plea has been taken before both the authorities below yet they have not given finding on that. In the absence of any contrary finding of fact that they are machined, plea before the lower authorities has to be accepted. In that view, he prays for allowing the appeals. 5. We have care....