Collector of Central Excise Vs. Madras Motors Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the iron & steel forged items. the respondents m/s.madras motors ltd. had sought classification of their products under heading no. 72.08 of the tariff as pieces roughly shaped by forging.this contention of the appellants (respondents before us) was rejected by the collector of central excise (appeals), madras, who held that at the point of the clearances, the goods in question had assumed the essential character of complete machinery part. he held that the forged items in question were to be classified as relevant machine parts incomplete or unfinished in rule 2(a) of the rules for interpretation of the central excise tariff act, 1985.2. the revenue had sought classification of the goods in question under heading no. 73.08 as other articles of iron or steel. the respondents are not represented. the notice for today's hearing had been issued to them on 9-6-1997. the notice had been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks 'left'.3. we have heard shri a.k. agarwal, sdr, and have gone through the facts on record. the three competing entries are one heading no. 72.08 relating to the pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel not elsewhere specified. the respondents had sought classification under this heading. the revenue before us had sought to classify the said products under heading no. 73.08 as other articles of iron or steel. as already referred to above, the collector of central excise (appeals) had classified the products as machinery parts in the light of rule 2(a) of the rules for interpretation of the central excise tariff act, 1985.4. the present appeal i filed by the revenue. the respondents m/s.madras motors ltd., in the present proceedings have not challenged the classification of the goods in question as machinery parts. in fact, the consultant appearing before the collector of central excise (appeals) had stated that for the subsequent period to the period covered in that appeal, the forged items had been classified as machinery parts and that they had filed an appeal against that order.there is nothing on record to show as to what happened to that appeal filed by them.5. we consider that the contention of the revenue that the forged products in question were classified under heading no. 73.08 is not substantiated. the heading no. 73.08 covered other articles of iron or steel and subheading no. 7308.90 covered 'other'. these are residuary entries and covered fully manufactured final products. in the grounds of appeal, reference had been made to notification no. 185/87-c.e., dated 27-8-1987, wherein exemption had been provided to forgings and forged products falling under subheading no. 7308.90 of the tariff. we consider that only the final finished articles of iron and steel could be covered by heading no. 73.08 and further if the articles had assumed a definite shape as machinery part, then they were to be classified (unless otherwise specifically provided under any other item) along with the machine of which they were the parts.6. as in our view, the classification of the goods in question under heading no. 73.08 is ruled out inasmuch as the goods in question were not fully finished, as referred to by the adjudicating authority, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned collector of central excise (appeals), madras and as a result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the Iron & Steel forged items. The respondents M/s.

Madras Motors Ltd. had sought classification of their products under Heading No. 72.08 of the Tariff as pieces roughly shaped by forging.

This contention of the appellants (respondents before us) was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, who held that at the point of the clearances, the goods in question had assumed the essential character of complete machinery part. He held that the forged items in question were to be classified as relevant machine parts incomplete or unfinished in Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. The Revenue had sought classification of the goods in question under Heading No. 73.08 as other articles of iron or steel. The respondents are not represented. The notice for today's hearing had been issued to them on 9-6-1997. The notice had been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks 'LEFT'.

3. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, and have gone through the facts on record. The three competing entries are one Heading No. 72.08 relating to the pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel not elsewhere specified. The respondents had sought classification under this heading. The Revenue before us had sought to classify the said products under Heading No. 73.08 as other articles of iron or steel. As already referred to above, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the products as machinery parts in the light of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

4. The present appeal i filed by the Revenue. The respondents M/s.

Madras Motors Ltd., in the present proceedings have not challenged the classification of the goods in question as machinery parts. In fact, the consultant appearing before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had stated that for the subsequent period to the period covered in that appeal, the forged items had been classified as machinery parts and that they had filed an appeal against that order.

There is nothing on record to show as to what happened to that appeal filed by them.

5. We consider that the contention of the Revenue that the forged products in question were classified under Heading No. 73.08 is not substantiated. The Heading No. 73.08 covered other articles of iron or steel and subheading No. 7308.90 covered 'other'. These are residuary entries and covered fully manufactured final products. In the grounds of appeal, reference had been made to Notification No. 185/87-C.E., dated 27-8-1987, wherein exemption had been provided to forgings and forged products falling under subheading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff. We consider that only the final finished articles of iron and steel could be covered by Heading No. 73.08 and further if the articles had assumed a definite shape as machinery part, then they were to be classified (unless otherwise specifically provided under any other item) along with the machine of which they were the parts.

6. As in our view, the classification of the goods in question under Heading No. 73.08 is ruled out inasmuch as the goods in question were not fully finished, as referred to by the adjudicating authority, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras and as a result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.