1. when the matter was called, nobody appeared
on behalf of the respondents. however, there was a request from them
to decide the case on merits. accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing shri s. nunthuk, learned jdr.2. shri s. nunthuk, while reiterating the grounds of appeal submitted that these interface cable assemblies are classifiable under 8544.00 as against the classification of 8471.00 claimed by the party and upheld by
the collector. in support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the tribunal in the case of toshniwal cables v. collector of central excise, jaipur reported in [1994 (72) e.l.t. 461 (tribunal)]
and also collector of central excise, raipur v. vee kay electricals reported in [1995 (77) e.l.t. 420 (tribunal)]. it was also brought to our notice that the tribunal ruled out the classification under 8544.00 as per order nos. e/776-777/98-b1 in appeal nos. e/5383/91-b and e/5386/91-b, dated 13-4-98 [2000 (126) e.l.t. 1053 (tri.)].3. in the written submissions, it was submitted by the respondents that they buy cables from
open market and cables have already suffered duty under sub-heading 8544.00. the only manufacturing activity undertaken by the company is the affixation of connectors to the procured cables as interface cables between various parts of the
computer system. it was also submitted by them that the cables are not inter-changeable and thus are specific to the machines to be connected and hence, they are appropriately classified under chapter 8471.00 alongwith computer in accordance with note 4 of section xvi.4. we find that the position with reference to the manufacture
has been correctly analysed by the collector in the impugned order as can be seen from the order. accordingly, we hold that the item is classifiable under 8471.00. we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and in the result, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.