ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s Sanwarmal Durgadutt is whether the casted articles of Aluminium and Zinc are classifiable under Chapter 76 and 79 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Chapter 87 as parts of motor vehicles.
2. Shri V. Sejpal, Ld. Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture aluminum castings and zinc castings as per the requirement of their customers; that after delivery of the castings their customers were carrying out further process as per their need; that the castings cannot be considered as parts of motor vehicle to be classifiable under Chapter 87. He further submitted that the casted articles manufactured by them are extremely rough and in semi-finished condition which cannot be recognized or termed as any specific part of components of any machinery or automobile. He relied upon the decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad in which it was held that castings of parts by themselves cannot be treated as having the essential character of the parts so as to classify the former with the latter. The Tribunal held that Rule 2(a) of the interpretative Rules does not permit to conclude that when an article squarely falls under a particular tariff heading, it can be made to fall under another heading by invoking the concept of essential character. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Ashoke Moulders (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1999 (33) RLT 38 (CEGAT) wherein it was held that Aluminium castings requiring machining before their use as parts of typewriters and duplicating machines are classifiable as castings under heading 7611. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Gravity Die Casters v. C.C.E., Madras .
3. Countering the arguments Shri R.K. Sharma, Ld. SDR submitted that the Appellants themselves in their classification list has given the description as “Pressure Die Cast parts of Zinc Alloy for Automobiles, Electrical and Engineering Industries”. He further submitted that this is evident from this that they were manufacturing parts which cannot be classifiable under Chapter 76 or 79 as the case may be.
4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. The appellants have now submitted that their Customers undertake further process on their castings such as machining, grinding, drilling the surface, etc. they had not taken this plea of any such details before the Adjudicating Authority. We also observe that the law regarding classification of castings has been settled by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works P. Ltd. (supra) benefit of which is not available either to the Adjudicating Authority or to the Collector (Appeals). We are therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority to readjudicate the matter after ascertaining the process undertaken by the Appellants and in the light of the decision in the case of Shivaji Works P. Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, remand both the matters to the Assistant Commissioner for readjudicating the same. The Appellants will be at liberty to adduce the evidence which they deem fit within two months of receipt of the order. The Appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.