TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of manufacture within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and liable to pay duty under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector so far as it related to the process of galvanisation of the customers articles received by the present appellants, Transpower Corporation, Taloja. 2. The learned counsel for M/s. Transpower Corporation argued that the show cause notice was for clearances effected on 31-1-1980 and before. The demand notice was issued on 22-4-1980. Therefore, it was barred for most of the period except those falling within six months. There was no allegation of fraud or suppression in the show cause notice and for this reason the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order as if the goods in dispute were steel structures: and steel towers. He says : Brief facts of the case are that Transpower Corporation, B-25, MIDC area, Taleja, District Raighad, manufacture steel towers, steel structures for sub-stations and other fabricated articles of steel duly galvanised by them. They also receive similar structures and fabricated articles like cable trays, ladders etc. from outside parties for the purpose of galvanisation thereon on job work basis. But he says a little later : I have observed that the process of galvanisation involves a series of operations and the final product would have an improved utility, character and longer life than the original product of iron and steel. 8. From these late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich are galvanised by these appellants, because this is the only way I can make sense out of this order. There is no truth in the claim that a galvanised steel product like an angle or a sheet or a channel becomes a distinct product and acquires a new name or a character or a use. A galvanised steel angle is still a steel angle, galvanised; and technology will never recognize that it is not a steel angle. At any rate, the Collector does not quote any technological authority for saying that it is different from a steel angle. There is no new use, because galvanised steel angle cannot be used in any manner different from the use to which the ungalvanised angle can be put. And the Collector quotes no authority for saying that the steel angle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made with ungalvanised structurals and steel members - one can see several of them, in the city, which, after erection, are given a coat on aluminium paint as weather protection or insulation. However, if the statement invokes Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, with respect to the structural members and sections to say that they are fully manufactured only after the galvanisation, then the Central Excise, in true logic, should have waited before collecting duty on the galvanised sections, angles, channels etc., because only after galvanisation they become fully manufactured. The logic employed defies comprehension. 12. There has been much debate on whether galvanising of steel sections and steel products like angl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariff; all finished products like angles, channels etc. were placed together in the same head. 14. In this case, the Central Excise held that if a steel product is galvanised, there has been a manufacture and manufacture means it should be subjected to the excise duty specified under item 68. This is a misunderstanding of the law. Because there has been a manufacture, does not mean that the product must be subjected to excise duty under item 68 and there is nothing to support this. This argument forgets that in assessing anything under item 68, the assessor must first ascertain that the product does not have a more appropriate and suitable head to cover it in the items preceding item 68. The choice is between item 26AA which covers struc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of a manufacture having taken place and the product thereupon losing its enchorage, to drift away to find another harbour. There was nothing in the two judgments of the Supreme Court to support a conclusion that because there is said to be a manufacture, the goods must go to 68; but this was the finding of the Collector; there is no other finding. This forms the basis for his assessment that the galvanised steel sections must be assessed under 68 after they ungalvanised sections had already been assessed under item 26AA. I can find nothing in the two Supreme Court judgments to encourage such a conclusion. I have said a number of times before that the famous DCM judgment of the Supreme Court had been often quoted but has been, as ofte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
