Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Lanjekar Sales Corpn. on 16 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(133)ELT408(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member(T)
1. The short point of consideration in this appeal from the Revenue is the interpretation of the word "chamfering" (champer as called by the Addition a Collector and by the appellate authority). We have heard Shri B.K. Choubery for the Revenue and Shri Vikash Khare for the assessees.The assessees manufacture cast copper articles availing of the benefit of notification 178/88 which extended its coverage to such articles when "not further worked". The case of the department was that in making sluice valves chamfering was done on the cast articles taking it out of the purview of subheading 7419.10 and putting it under sub-heading 7419.99 whereby it became unfit for the benefit of the notification.The view was confirmed by the Addition Collector in his order. The Commissioner in his order held that in terms HSN sub-notes even if the castings were subjected to certain processes enumerated therein, the character or the cast articles were not lost.The Commissioner equated the action of chamfering with grinding and ruled in favour of the assessee. Hence the appeal.
2. We have seen the various definitions of chamfering.In certain cases it means cuttings or grinding off bevel-wise.In certain cases it is defined as cutting furrows or channels in a surface. Therefore the activity of chamfering does not automatically amount to that of bevelling.The statement made by the assessee was that in their case chamfering amounted to grinding and it was accepted by the Commissioner(Appeals). We take note of the annexure to the show cause notice which in listing the machinery available in the assessee unit shows only a bench grinder. Shri Khare made the statement that bevelling is a sophisticated process which a bench grinder is not capable of performing.
3. We thus find that on the basis of the multiple interpretation of the term "chamfering" and the statement that in the absence of a specific machine, the so called chamfering did not amount to bevelling has merits. We uphold the Commissioner's order and dismiss this appeal.
(Dictated in Court)