2016 (2) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal SVS/346/NGP-II/2006 dated 31.10.2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are respondent herein is manufacturer of Iron and Steel products i.e. Rough Forging, Rolling Mill Parts and Rolls etc., falling under Chapters 72, 73 and 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA). It was noticed that they had classified the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Learned D.R. would take us through the Grounds of Appeal and submit that the first appellate authority has given a lot of undue emphasis on the expression "Open Forging" in the purchase order placed on the respondent by the buyers. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has cited two paragraphs on the articles published in the "Wikipedia" which cannot be conclusive as "Wikiped....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the products which were manufactured prior to 01.03.1998 and the products forgings of steel were held as classifiable under sub-Heading No. 7208.00. Subsequently, on 01.03.1998 Chapter Nos. 72 and 73 of CETA were fully aligned with HSN which would amount that the products manufactured by the respondent would fall under Chapter Heading 73. He would submit that the Board's Circular No. 139/79/8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dimension and machines indicated that the manufactured item is "Open Forging". 5. We have considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The entire dispute is regarding whether the product manufactured by respondent is "rough forging", and merits classification under 73.26 as claimed by the respondent or 7207.10 as confirmed by the first appellate authority. 7. On peru....