However, on appeal the Appellate Collector, Madras by his order dated 19 4 1983 allowed the appeal holding that the articles companyld number be identified as parts of steel furniture and were, therefore, number dutiable under Entry 40.
On 2 12 1982 the Assistant Collector ruled that the goods were parts of steel furniture and were classifiable under the afore mentioned Tariff Item No.
The Tribunal by its order dated 27 7 1987 allowed the appeal reversing the view of the Appellate Collector, Madras and restoring that of the Assistant Collector, Madras.
The appellant showed cause by his detailed reply on 18 11 1982 wherein the appellant emphasized that the goods are used for industrial structures and are, therefore, number liable to be classified under the said entry.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, issued a numberice calling upon the appellant to show cause why the goods manufactured by the appellant should number be classified as parts of steel furniture falling within the scope of Tariff Item No.
The assessee feeling aggrieved has approached this Court through this appeal companytending that the view taken by the CEGAT was number companyrect and the companyrect view was the one taken by the Appellate Collector, Madras.
The rate of duty was stated to be 25 per cent ad valorem.
Steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, whether in assembled or unassembled companydition and parts of such steel furniture but excluding slotted angles and channels made of steel .
The department feeling aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Collector, Madras moved the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT .
40 of the Central Excise Tariff.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the assessee at length as also the learned companynsel for the Revenue.
That item reads as under 40.
