2005 (5) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - Fabricated structurals - Demand of duty - Limitation - Valuation (Central Excise) - Excisability of the goods - HELD THAT - We find that appellants are fabricating columns purlines etc. by cutting drilling punching and welding on duty paid channels and angles and thereafter these are being assembled to post at work site and are fixed in the exact position. In the impugned order it is held that process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture as a new and distinct product has come into existence which has distinct name and goods in question are classifiable under Heading 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff. We find that the issue of excisability of the goods which are under dispute in the present appeal is decided by the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries 1986 (5) TMI 169 - CEGAT NEW DELHI In this case the Tribunal held that goods in question are not excisable goods and the processes undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Wainganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 2002 (4) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT whereby the Supreme Court affirm the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries 1986 (5) TMI 169 - CEGAT NEW DELHI . We find no reason to upheld the finding in the impugned order whereby it is held that the goods are excisable. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of fabricated items under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff
- Determination of whether the process undertaken amounts to manufacture
- Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases

Analysis:

1. Classification of Fabricated Items: The issue in these appeals revolved around the classification of columns, beams, trusses, and purlines under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. The show-cause notices demanded duty on the basis that the fabrication of these items amounts to manufacture. The appellants argued that they were only cutting, drilling, and assembling channels and angles at the work site without changing their nature. The Revenue contended that the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture, relying on Tribunal decisions and previous cases.

2. Manufacture Determination: The Tribunal found that the appellants were indeed fabricating columns, purlins, etc., by cutting, drilling, punching, and welding duty-paid channels and angles. The Tribunal held that a new and distinct product emerged through this process, which warranted classification under Heading 7308. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in previous Tribunal decisions where the issue of excisability was either set aside as time-barred or remanded without a clear determination.

3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Aruna Industries, where it was held that the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture. This decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent cases, affirming that fabricated materials were not excisable goods. The Tribunal also highlighted the dismissal of appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, further supporting the non-excisability of such fabricated items.

4. Final Decision: Considering the consistent legal precedents and the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Aruna Industries, the Tribunal set aside the findings in the impugned orders. The appeals were allowed, concluding that the goods in question were not excisable. This judgment aligns with the established legal position regarding the classification and excisability of fabricated items under the Central Excise Tariff.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the classification, manufacturing process, and legal precedents provided a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. The judgment not only clarified the excisability of the disputed goods but also emphasized the importance of consistent legal interpretations and adherence to established precedents in such matters.