Full Judgment
2. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that the issue, is no longer res Integra and the matter has been looked into in great detail by the Tribunal in number of judgments as in the case of Araveli Forgings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur as reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 which decided the classification of the impugned product prior to 1-3-1988. The Tribunal looked into the judgments of the Tribunal as well as [that of] High Court and [of] Hon'ble Supreme Court and has given a categorical finding that pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel are not classifiable as 'articles of iron & steel'. In this regard the Tribunal also took into consideration the Board's circular dated 8-9-1989. He submits that the same ratio has been followed in the subsequent orders pertaining to forged [products] in the case of Echjay Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 98 (Tribunal) and that of Jaypee Forges Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay as reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 49 and again these judgments were referred in the case of S.S. Miranda Ltd. and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 634 (Tribunal).
He submits that the items removed by the appellants were in forged conditions and they had not acquired the essential characteristic of an article and all other processes were carried out by the buyers. He also submits that the department in the subsequent proceedings initiated against them has dropped the same as per Order-in-Original 45/90 passed by Addl. Collector and the department have now accepted the classification of the impugned goods under Heading 7208 and granted the benefit of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 as amended.
Therefore, he submits that in view of the department having dropped the subsequent proceedings on the same goods and the matter also having been decided by the Tribunal in the above noted judgments, the appeal is required to be allowed.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the submission made by ld. Advocate is correct and the matter is no longer res integra. The classification of the impugned goods pertains to the period prior to 1-3-1988 and the same has been considered in these judgments referred to by ld. Advocate. In all the citations, the Tribunal has gone into great detail with regard to the classification of forged items and also with regard to the applicability of Rule 2(a) of the interpretative rules and has also considered the earlier judgments of the Tribunal, High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the matter having been decided in the assessee's favour holding the items to be only 'pieces roughly shaped' by rolling or forging of iron and steel falling under Heading 7208 and not elsewhere specified and also granted the benefit of the notification in question, the impugned order is required to be set aside. We also notice that the department have themselves dropped the proceedings against the assessee pertaining to the same issue. We have perused the Order-in-Original 45/90, dated 30-10-1991 of the Additional Collector and confirm this situation. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.