TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Final Order No. 925/2000-B, dated 20th June, 2000 in Appeal No. E/2677/94-B passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant. 2.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Malleable Cast Iron (MCI) inserts. These inserts are meant for the manufacture of concrete sleepers for exclusive use by the Indian Railways. The assessee-appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 25th February, 1994 under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on the ground that there was suppression of facts by the assessee regarding classification thereby making themselves eligible and taking the benefit of Notification No. 223....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. 413 (T)] laid down the test that the inserts required a precision machining to come out of the exemption notification. The Tribunal in the said judgment in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 observed, thus : Before the introduction of the new Tariff"7. from 1-3-1986, these Inserts were classified as Castings of Iron and Steel. They were not being classified under Tariff Item 68 of the Tariff. In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported at 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (SC), the Supreme Court had gone to deal with the forged products in rough machined conditions. The Supreme Court observed that machining and polishing is done to remove excess surface skin from the forged product and was incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. referred to above. The Board's clarification also supports the case of the appellants." In the aforesaid case, it was held by the Tribunal that the inserts did not require any precision machining and, therefore the inserts produced by the assessees were entitled to the exemption provided in Notification No. 208/83-C.E. The notifications in the present case with which we are concerned is Notification No. 223/88-C.E. which was succeeded to by Notification No. 275/88-C.E. Both these notifications are the same in contents. The department accepted the decision in Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [1996 (88) E.L.T. 413] and did not file any appeal there-against. Havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal in Hindustan Gas & Industries case (supra), amongst other decisions, was relied upon by the assessee before the Tribunal as noticed by the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 10 and dealt with in Paragraph No. 12 of the impugned Final Order, the Tribunal held that this case has no applicability to the present case. The Tribunal has, in fact, not deliberated on the said decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal and, without examining the ratio therein, simply held the same to be inapplicable to the present case. 9.Assuming even if it were to disagree with the test laid down in Hindustan Gas & Industries case (supra), in order to maintain the judicial propriety in decision-making, the Tribunal ought to have referred the matter t....