NATTOJI INDUSTRIES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in these two appeals relates to classification of certain products which the Department claim to be parts of scooters whereas the appellants claim them to be castings.

(2.) IN Order -in -Appeal in the case of Nattoji Industries, the appellants had argue before the Collector (Appeals) that their products could not be considered as parts of machinery or components of machinery and they are in fact cast articles classifiable under Chapter sub -heading 7616.90. They had contended that the cardinal principle of interpretation of the Tariff entries was that the items should be understood in the manner they are understood by the people who deal in the product. They were selling their product as castings and even the orders received by them were for manufacture of casting and they are also commercially understood as casting. The Collector (Appeals) had however, rejected their submissions and confirmed the Assistant Collector's order holding that the goods manufactured by the appellants even though in the nature of semi -finished goods, have acquired the essential characteristic as identifiable parts of various machines and therefore, they have to be classified as such and not under the heading of the metal of which they were made. He also found that the appellants had not shown that the goods manufactured by them have not reached the stage of identifiable parts of machinery. In the case of Shanti Metal Works also the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the Order -in -Original wherein the Assistant Collector has held that the appellants' products were identifiable parts of machines having definite characteristics and accordingly classifiable under Chapter Headings 94.05, 76.15 and 87.14. He rejected the appellants' contention that the casting articles cleared by them had not acquired the characteristics of finished machine parts so that it could be classified under Tariff Heading 94.76 or 87.14. Collector (Appeals) also referred to the Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which excluded certain articles specified under Section Note I. He held that the castings as they came out from their moulds are fettling etc. and would be appropriately regarded as semi -finished articles having the essential character of finished machine parts which, as per Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation would be classifiable under their respective chapters of the machines to which they belong. Therefore, castings, which require identifiable shape of various articles have to be classified thereunder and not under the headings of the metals. Collector (Appeals) found that the impugned products manufactured by M/s. Shanti Metal Works are semi -finished articles having essential characteristics of finished articles.

(3.) WE have heard Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Advocate for the appellants, and Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR for the Department.