ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is the appeal of the Revenue seeking for reversal of the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay in order No. M-1645-1646/B1-569-570/84 dated 14-8-84 and to confirm the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector in order dated 1-11-1983.
2. The respondents are manufacturers of ‘Fire Brand’ fire protection Cabinet (Code No. FB/1785) and Computer Record Cabinet (Code No. CRC). They filed Classification list No. 1/83 and 3/83 in respect of Fire Protection Computer Data Cabinet (Code CDC) seeking classification as steel furniture under Item No. 40 of CET. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division by his order referred to above, classified the products under Tariff item 48 as safes and strong boxes.
3. The respondents being aggrieved by the said order-in-original had appealed before Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay who allowed their appeal and held the classification under Item 40 of the CET as steel furniture. Being aggrieved by such classification, the revenue has sought for setting aside the impugned order and for restoration of the order-in-original.
4. The appellants had earlier filed another appeal in Appeal No. 1440/81-D in respect of the classification of the same products of the respondents. The said appeal has been disposed of by Order No. 55/85-D dated 8-2-1985 in favour of the respondents upholding the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.
5. When this matter came up for hearing, Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, the learned Departmental Representative appearing for the appellants , produced the copy of the order No. 55/85-D and fairly conceded the position in favour of the respondents and submitted that the ruling in Order No. 55/85-D in respect of the classification of the respondents product has been answered by this Bench.
6. Heard both sides, persued the records and considered the submissions of both the sides. This Bench in Order No. 55/85-D has decided the issue of classification in favour of the respondents by upholding the order-in-appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The matter is same involving the same items. The facts of the case in Order No. 55/85-D are similar involving the same items manufactured by the respondents. The Order No. 55/85-D pertains to earlier classification of the respondents product. Applying the rulings, this appeal has to be rejected and the same is dismissed.