ORDER
H.R. Syiem, Member (T)
1. The learned counsel for M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. said that the order-in-appeal No. 1684/Cal/81, dated 21-12-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, was erroneous and did not take all the facts into account. The goods they cleared viz. balls and cylpebs, were nothing but cast products. They were not, in any way, machine parts and there had been no finishing by the use of machines. All the goods had received were fettling and dressing; both these were carried out manually. The balls and cylpebs as they came out of their casting moulds are separated from each other by a hand-wielded hammer or some such hand-held tool for knocking away extra unwanted metal. This process is known as fettling in metal industry. Since these fettled balls invariably contain sands, dust and other foreign matter, they are cleaned by brushing and washing; this process, also known as dressing, is carried out by hand. It will be appreciated that both processes of fettling and dressing as required under IS Specification No. 9.1 in IS : 1030-1962 which is observed in the trade and industry for all iron and steel castings for technological purposes under IS Specifications for marketing, are done physically and manually. It is also well known that all castings whether iron or steel are manufactured for specific purposes and each of such purposes in any trade parlance and practice is given a suitable name for each casting, which cannot detract from the fact that the products were iron or steel castings. The learned counsel argued, therefore, that the decision to regard the castings as identifiable machine parts as the Appellate Collector has done was wrong.
2. The learned SDR did not have anything to say on behalf of the department.
3. The error in the learned counsel for M/s. Electrosteel Castings, Mr. Chatterjee’s argument, was that he seems to be under the impression that nothing that is cast and that has received only fettling and such other rudimentary touches can ever ~ leave the category of castings. This is not a correct appreciation. It is true that most castings will have to go through considerable further processing, finishing, machining etc. etc. before they can be identifiable or before they can be excisable as other than castings, that is to say, as machine parts. A motor housing that comes out of the casting will have to be machined to a good finish. A wheel that comes out from the casting mould will have to undergo several processes as well as precision machining, because its exact fit and dimensions are critical in the applications to which it will be put; even though the shape of the wheel can be seen in the rough cast, no one will accept it as a wheel until it has undergone all the machining, processes, etc. that such wheel has to undergo.
4. This is not the case with the cylpebs and the balls. The appellants themselves say in their appeal/revision petition that the “rough surfaces obtained in mouldings of balls and cylpebs are allowed to remain as such in their original state as they come out of the moulds for the specific reason that with the rough surfaces, the grinding efficiency and capacity is more and which is most desirable in the trade since because smoother are the surfaces, the grinding effects and efficiency will be much reduced.” (sic)
5. In another part, the appeal says that the balls and cylpebs are used over and over again in different ball mills in operation after operation. These iron and steel balls can be used only in ball mills of different specifications, sizes and shapes in a most general manner. Furthermore, they described their balls as grinding media and hyper steel. It is in these conditions that the goods are regarded by them as having reached a marketable condition for delivery to the buyers and it is in these conditions that they are cleared and sold to customers. The iron and steel balls and cylpebs manufactured by them are, according to their own submissions, accessories and/or equipments required for uses in ball mills, their function being to grind either in wet or dry conditions, various materials of soft consistencies as well as hard consistencies as required in various industries such as cement, paint, dyes, chinaware and porcelain etc., where fineness is the most essential criterion required in the industry to reduce the goods to the form of a paste or a powder.
6. It is impossible to give a precise definition and categorisation for this kind of assessment. One cast product may remain a casting long after it has left the mould and after it has undergone a number of further processes; some other cast product will be as good as finished as it comes out of the mould. These balls and cylpebs do not require finishing, and for this we have the words of the appellants themselves, because in the job in which they will be employed, the balls need to have as rough surfaces as possible, because then the grinding is more efficiently and quickly done. It is by no means an unreasonable assessment to say that after the fettling and cleaning or dressing, the balls and cylpebs become identifiable as ball mill accessories/parts and no longer as mere castings. There might be a case for saying that they are, in spite of this, steel casting; but there is also a case for saying that they are no longer castings; but have become ball-mill balls and equipments, and in that class they will move out of the category of castings. The argument by M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. that these are not machine parts and are not parts of the ball mill is only half true if one takes into account the fact that they are not fitted in the grinding mill. But the mill cannot grind, however much it may run, without the balls in the drum. The balls perform an essential part in the grinding by the ball mill and must, therefore, be classed as parts of the ball mill. A component, whose absence will disable a machine or appliance, must be regarded as an essential ingredient or part of that machine. The assessment of the balls and cylpebs under item 68 is not unjustifiable, and accordingly this appeal is rejected.