ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The respondents herein filed a classification list effective from 1-3-1988 in which they had declared that they are manufacturing “forged shapes of non-alloy steel” and “forged shaped of alloy steel” and claimed classification of these items under CET sub-headings 7216.60 and 7228.79. The Department was of the view that the products in dispute did not conform to the description of the goods covered by the headings claimed by the assesses and that the goods were more appropriately classifiable as other forged articles of iron and steel under CET sub-heading 7326.19 and hence issued a show cause notice proposing classification under the last heading above mentioned. The Assistant Collector confirmed classification under the Heading proposed in the show cause notice, holding that the items were manufactured as per samples/specifications and dimensions supplied by the customers and that they have irregular cross-section and, therefore, are not covered by the definition of angles, shapes and sections as per Note 1(n) to Chapter 72 which provide that angles, shapes and sections have uniform solid section along their whole length. He also held that the items are not manufactured in lengths as angles, shapes and sections. The lower appellate authority to whom the assessees filed an appeal held that the roughly shaped forged pieces required considerable shaping and machining before being known as forged articles and, she, therefore, set aside the Assistant Collector’s order and accepted the appeal of the assessees. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. We heard Shri Nunthuk, learned DR and perused the records since none appeared for the respondents.
3. We have gone through the adjudication order wherein the key features of the products in dispute have been discussed in detail by the Assistant Collector. He has found that the goods in question have irregular shape and cross-sections, they are forged products which are produced by drop hammers with the help of dies which are ready for machining, and that they cannot be treated as pieces roughly shaped as they attain the specific shape of the finished product and only require machining on the operational surface for converting them into finished products. He has, therefore, held that the goods do not conform to the description of the goods covered by CET sub-headings 7216.60 and 7228.79 as claimed by the manufacturers. In view of the fact that the goods are not angles, shapes and sections but are forged products of irregular shape and cross-sections, we agree with the learned DR that they cannot be termed as angles, shapes and sections and hence classification under Chapter 72 is not appropriate and that the correct classification under Heading 73.26 as forged articles of iron and steel has been correctly arrived at by the adjudicating authority. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.