TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of articles of iron and steel, dies for stampings and parts of agricultural implements, etc. On 6-9-2002, the officers of Revenue Department visited the premises of the appellants firm and they found the appellants were clearing the forged articles of iron and stee1 falling under Heading 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff while misdeclaring as parts of agricultural implements falling under sub-heading 8432.00 of the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for reclassifying the goods in question under Heading 73.26 of the Tariff and the duty was also demanded for the period from October, 1997 to July, 2002 by invoking the proviso to Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, 1997 to July, 2002. The contention of the appellants is that in the year 1999, the appellants filed a classification list claiming classification of goods in question under sub-heading 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue had not accepted this declaration and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 40/90, dated 15-6-1990 approved the classification under Chapters 84 to 87 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh. In the circumstances, the allegations of suppression or mis-declaration to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants are clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited. After the decision of the Tribunal in the in the case of Shivaji Works Limited, the Central Board of Excise and Customs also issued the instructions to this effect. The contention of the appellants is that they are only removing extra unwanted material from the hul and disc spindle. Therefore, they are classifiable as forged articles of iron and steel. We find that the facts of the present case are not similar to the facts of the M/s. Metal Forgings (P) Limited and in the case of M/s. Shivaji Works Limited. In the present case, the customers of the appellants undertake the various processes such as grinding, heat treatment, hole making and short blasting and thereafter hul and disc are become capable of to be used as parts of agri....