2005 (10) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - The appellant is a manufacturer of forgings falling under Chapter Heading 72.08 of the Schedule to CETA. During the period 1986-87 and 1987-88 the appellants manufactured forgings of iron and steel on his own account and on job work also. The Departments' allegation was that the appellant exceeded the lim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal. The grounds were that the Additional Collector erred in. holding that the goods in question fall under Chapter Heading 7308.90. The contention was that they are rightly classifiable under 7208 as a pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel not elsewhere specified. It was contended that the Additional Collector decided the classification of goods under 7308.90 witho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during de novo proceedings agreed that the goods under question do fall under 72.08 as the forgings were not worked beyond proof machining. The Tribunal directed him to follow the decisions in Aravali Forgings & Others v. CCE, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 and the clarification issued by the Board in F.No. 1139/79/87-CX IV dated 4-6-1987 in the matter of classification of forgings while remanding the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one of the procedures prescribed under that Notification was followed by the claimant. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The Tribunal remanded the matter in the earlier round of litigation with clear directions that the adjudicating authority should examine the evidence tendered by both the parties (Department and the Assessee) to establish that the appellant did not carry out any process be....