ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product known as drop forgings. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi, in para 3 of his order has held as under –
“3. I have gone through the order passed by the Assistant Collector and the grounds of appeal. It is not in dispute that the forgings in this case are drop forgings which are machined for making hand tools. The Assistant Collector has examined the classification dispute with reference to the explanatory notes in HSN. It is seen that drop forgings are clearly excluded from Chapter 72. HSN notes makes it very clear that drop forgings, (which are ready for machining) are not classifiable under Chapter 72. This aspect has been dealt with in detail in the Assistant Collector’s order. Accordingly, applying Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules drop forgings in this case are classifiable under Chapter 82.”
2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. Earlier the matter had come up on 1-11-1999 when also no one appeared for the appellants. In the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for today and the notice was sent on 16-11-1999. The appellants are from Faridabad. As the matter is old in which the order-in-original was passed in the year 1993 and the relevant classification list was effective from 1-8-1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, DR.
3. We have carefully considered the matter. The operative part of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had already been extracted above. The product in question, the drop forgings, as per the HSN Explanatory Notes was excluded from Chapter 72. Thus the claim of the appellant that their goods were classifiable under Chapter 72 has been rightly rejected by the appellate authority. He has also referred to the detailed reasonings given by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority had observed that on visual examination of samples produced by the party, it was seen that these forgings in question had been manufactured with drawing and specification of finished tools and had been given a definite shape by the process of forging and even sizes and name of the party and the metal it was made of got embossed on them.
4. After going through the facts on records, we find that no material has been placed on record by the appellants to disturb the findings of fact by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The case law referred to in the memo of appeal does not exactly cover the situation in the present proceedings.
5. After going through the facts on records, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.