2000(07)LCX0263

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)

ADVANCE FORGINGS

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

Final Order Nos. 1136-1137/2000-B, dated 17-7-2000 in Appeal No. E/1331-1332/94-B

CASE QUOTED

Final Order E/232 to 242/93-B 1, dated 23-8-1993 — Referred......................................................... [Para 2]

Advocated By :     S/Shri R.C. Gupta and R. Santhanam, Advocates, for the Appellants.

Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. Advance Forgings (P) Ltd.; and (2) M/s. Jai Forgings and Stampings (P) Ltd., being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 23-3-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, and Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate, submitted that the matter in both these appeals relates to the classification which the appellants had described as pieces roughly shaped by forging. They had sought classification under Heading No. 72.08 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the Revenue had sought to classify them as machinery parts in different Chapters 84, 85, 86 or 87 as the case may be. It was their submission that the products in dispute were similar to the products which were before the Tribunal in the group of appeals disposed of by the common Final Order No. E/232 to 242/93-B1. It is submitted that M/s. Jay Forgings and Stampings (P) Ltd. was one of the appellants in those group of appeals. It was also submitted that the matter had been earlier settled by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal No. 1024/CE/DLH/90 dated 15-11-1990 and the matter had been decided in favour of the appellants by classifying the same products under sub-heading No. 7208.00 of the Tariff. This order was not appealed against, and independently the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise proceeded to change the classification leading to the present proceedings. It was their submission that the matter could be decided in terms of the observations and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order. It was also pleaded that this Tribunal's order dated 23-8-1993 was referred to in the proceedings before the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), but he has not discussed the same in his order. Reference was made to the written submissions which are not on record.

3. We have heard Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, SDR, and have gone through the facts on record.

4. From the impugned order-in-appeal it is seen that the goods involved were mentioned by the appellants as pieces roughly shaped by forging and the appellate authority after referring to the HSN Notes had taken a view that the goods had essential character of finished products and the goods were classifiable under different Chapters relating to the finished machinery parts.

5. We find that the order dated 23-8-1993 has not been taken note of by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and as, prima facie, it appears that the products referred to in that Tribunal’s decision were akin to the products in dispute before us, we consider that both these appeals need to be remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who should re-examine the matter in the light of the Tribunal’s aforesaid decision and then after giving an opportunity to both the sides pass a speaking appealable order, as per law. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed by way of remand.

_______

Equivalent 2000 (121) ELT 33 (Tribunal)