ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the classification of the products manufactured by M/s. EEE & CEE Pressings P. Ltd. is under Heading 73.08, as claimed by the appellants or Heading 86.07 as ordered by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.
2. Shri Shiv Das, ld. Advocate, submitted that they are fabricating certain products as per drawings given by the Indian Railways and the items fabricated by them are Tray with inspection cover, tray, lower spring beam, body bolster, bogie bolster and head stock complete. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list under Heading 7308. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) classified them under Heading 8607 holding that the goods have been worked to such an extent that they are clearly identifiable as parts of rolling stock. Ld. Advocate, further, submitted that their main challenge is to this findings of the Collector (Appeals). They have merely fabricated the items, which are further worked upon by the railways before they are used in the rolling stock. On queries from the Bench as to what operations are carried out by the railways, he could not give any answer as there is nothing on record to indicate any further working by the railways. He, finally, emphasised that for classifying the goods under Heading 86.07, the goods should have become identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally with the type of vehicles mentioned in this heading and emphasised that the goods, manufactured by the appellants, have not become identifiable as such.
3. Shri A.K. Jain, ld. JDR, submitted that the goods fabricated by the appellants are identifiable as parts for use solely or principally in the rolling stock. He drew our attention to Para 6E of the appeal memo, according to which, the fabrication made according to the drawings of the railways and supplied to the railways are no doubt used in the rolling stock especially in the underframe/bogie/shell and these are welded at the respective places to bring out a part in the rolling stock. Ld. DR contended that this clearly shows that no further work is being done upon the goods by the railways before they are used in the rolling stock. He also relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. Sri Ram Metal Works reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 616 wherein the Tribunal held that container fabricated to specific design and drawings of railways for fitment into coach are classifiable under Heading 8607 of the Tariff.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is an admitted fact that all the goods have been manufactured by the appellants as per drawings given by the railways and the goods are used in the rolling stock as such. We find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ram Metal Works (supra), squarely applies to the facts of the present case wherein water container fabricated according to the design and drawings of the railways for fitment into coach were classified under Heading 8607. The Tribunal also observed that Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 86 clearly sets out that the coach work falls under this chapter. We also find that the railways are attaching these goods by the process of welding in the underframe, etc. which goes to show that these goods are parts of locomotives or rolling stock as such covered by Heading 8607. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.