Harish Chancier, Member (J)

1. Burn Standard Company Limited, 10-C, Hungerford Street, Calcutta had filed a Revision Application to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 313/Cal/82 dated 24-4-82 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 to be disposed of as an appeal.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a holder of L-4 Central Excise Licence and manufacture excisable goods falling under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. The appellant manufactured and cleared different types of identifiable machine parts/goods against specific orders made out of steel castings. In order to manufacture these items, steel castings of required shapes and sizes were cast. Thereafter these castings were machined/ polished so as to make the finished products as identifiable goods/machine parts having distinct trade names, characters and uses. The Revenue authorities were of the view that these products were classifiable under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff as these were not covered under any items 1 to 67 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range 3, Calcutta V-Divn had issued a show cause notice as to why the duty of excise amounting to Rs. 26,150.98 should not be paid by them as required under Rule 10 read with Rule 1733 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. In reply to the said show cause notice the appellant had contended that they had some doubts about paying of excise duty on machined steel castings under T.I.68 as the same were covered originally under Tariff Item 26AA(V) of the C.E.T. It was further mentioned that the appellant had referred to this matter vide their letter dated 6-8-79 and a clarification to this effect was duly given by the respondents vide letter dated 4-9-75 that machine steel castings should not attract excise duty for the second time under Tariff Item 68 and while the machine iron castings should be covered under Tariff Item 68 as they were exempted from the purview of excise duty being under T.I. 25. Accordingly the appellant had been paying excise duty on machined iron castings but not on machined steel castings. It was also argued before the Assistant Collector that steel I castings under consideration do not undergo major change in appearance after machining and as such no further duty liability should be charged on these goods. The learned Assistant Collector was of the view that after machining the castings no longer remained castings. New commodities having new trade names such as buffer plunger, C.S. Sheet, lock lift lever etc. emerge. He was of the view that machining amounts to manufacture and the new products which emerge out after machining were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The learned Assistant Collector had confirmed the demand. Being, aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The learned Appellate Collector had observed that the appellants themselves sell this product not as a simple steel casting but as a specified component and machine part mostly used in the Railway System as buffer plunger, C.S. Sheet, lock lift lever etc. the products have assumed completely new identity as correctly held by the Assistant Collector in the impugned order. He had confirmed the findings of the learned Assistant Collector and had held that the products so manufactured were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff; and had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellants have come in appeal.

3. Shri Shankar Ghose, learned Sr. Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the a