Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Tisco vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 6 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(106)ELT427(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. These are five appeals filed by the assessee M/s TISCO involving common issue and therefore they are clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Shri Ravindra Narain, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the point to be considered in this case is whether forged rolled rings and other forged products are classifiable under 7208.90 as claimed by the assessee or under 7308.90 as claimed by the department. He submitted that the dispute is in respect of forged rolled rings and other forged products. Since they are forged items and some further machining is required they are to be classified under 72.08 since there is a specific entry in respect of forged items. He submitted that these items cannot be considered as part of the machinery. Further he said that the very issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the very appellants' case and the Tribunal connected with the Aravali Forgings Ltd. as per Order No. E/232-242/93-B1, dated 24-8-1993 in Appeal No. E/A/160/88-B1 (CCE v. TISCO) held that the items continues to be forged and accordingly is classifiable under 7208.90 while dismissing the appeal filed by the department. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (S.C.) while interpreting old Tariff Entry 26AA it was clearly held that if some machining was required to be done the item continues to be forged products and is classifiable under Item 26AA.
3. Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR countering the arguments submitted that the point to be considered in this case whether item is to be classified under 7208.90 or as other articles of iron and steel under 7308.90. Question of considering the part of machinery is not an issue in this case. He submitted that since the item is completed though something is required to be done still it could be classified as article of iron and steel under 7308.90. He submitted that while classifying the item Note 6 of Chapter 84 would apply and taking into consideration interpretation of Rule 2(a), the item in question is appropriately classifiable under 7308.90. He also submitted that the earlier decision referred to by the other side has not taken note of the HSN while deciding the issue of classification. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. C.C., Mcidras [1987 (28) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal)]. In that case it was held that it has to be applied to find out whether such article has an essential character of complete article or not while deciding the item whether it is incomplete or unfinished product. Applying the principle, he said that the item in question is having essential character of complete article and accordingly it has to be classified as article of iron and steel under entry 7308.90.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the very issue for the same period w.r.t. the relevant tariff entry has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very appellant's case. In that case Rule 2(a) of the Interpretation Rules relied upon by the department has been ruled out. Further it was held that since the item continues to be forged item and to become a finished product some further machining was required to be done, it is classifiable under 7208.90. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice and no information whether this matter has gone to the Supreme Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case since the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case w.r.t. the very item, following the precedent, we accept the contention of the appellant and accordingly, we hold that item in question is classifiable under 7208.90/7207 as claimed by the assessee. Thus, these five appeals are disposed of in the above terms.