S.D. Jha, J.

1. Appeal No. 350/1978-B originally a Revision application to Government of India-transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it. is directed against order dated 20-11-1977, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. By the said order, the learned Collector upheld the order dated 15-1-1977, passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. By this order, the learned Deputy Collector appropriated a sum of Rs. 500.00 for not producing the goods before him in terms of the bond executed by the appellants and committed a breach thereof, directed the appellants to pay Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 606.52 for removing excisable goods during the period 30-7-75 to 10-8-75 without payment of duty and also imposed penalty of Rs. 250.00 for breach of and under Rule 173Q. In this case, it appears that the appellants were charged with having cleared goods without payment of duty and without properly accounting the same and thus having committed breach of certain provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. Appeal No. 2041/83-B is directed against order-in-appeal dated 21-6-83, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. In this appeal, the learned Collector, after the matter was remanded to him by the Tribunal by order No. B-62/83, dated 5-2-83 held that items manufactured by the appellants and cleared from the factory will attract Central Excise duty and would be assessed accordingly. He thus upheld order dated 10-4-78, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane-Dn. II. By this order, the A.C.C.E. declined to differ from the conclusion reached by A.C.C.E. Dn. III in according approval to appellants classification list. By the said list the appellants goods were classified as Items falling under T.I. 68. He has also held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to file price lists or opt for assessment under Notification No. 120/75 dt. 30-4-1975 and lapse on their part was breach of Rule 173-B punishable under Rule 173Q. He however imposed no penalty but cautioned the appellants to be more careful and regular in future.

3. Appeal No. 2719/83-B is directed against order-in-appeal No. 304/83 dt. 5-9-1983, passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. By the said order, the learned Collector rejected the appellants appeal and upheld the order dated 4-2-1983, passed by the A.C.C.E., Madras-VII Dn. By this order, the A.C.C.E. rejected the appellants contention that their products were semi finished non-excisable goods and held that assembled items as well as component parts manufactured by the appellants at factory premises were excisable goods classifiable under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

4. Appeal No. 2720/83 is directed against order-in-appeal No. 350/83, dated 5-9-83, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (A), Madras. By the said order, the learned Collector held that appeal did not lie against provisional assessment and so holding dismissed the appeal filed against order dated 24-2-83, passed by the A.C.C.E., Madras VII Dn., the order by which A.C.C.E. had directed the appellants to file price list in part-II for every contract entered into by them in the manner directed in the order.

5. This order will dispose of all the above described appeals.

6. The appellants have another appeal No. 785/84-B fixed for hearing on 24-9-82. On Departmental Representative's request to which Shri Habbu had no objection, records and order in that appeal, so far as material is to be read, as evidence in these appeals.

7. Appeal No. 2720/83-B may be considered first. In this appeal it was inter alia argued by Shri R.K. Habbu that the Collector was in error in holding that no appeal was maintainable against an order of provisional assessment. He explained how the directions of the A.C.C.E. calling upon the appellants to file price list in part-II for every contract entered into by the appellants was not a practicable