TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. (NALCO) for fabricating and erecting structural steel work. They received all the raw material like angles, channels, tin plates etc. from M/s. NALCO. The raw materials were subjected to the process of cutting into proper sizes, drilling holes where necessary, and all this works was done in the premises of M/s. NALCO. The show cause notice was issued to them on 16-3-1988 alleging that they had manufactured/fabricated steel structural items. The works was for electrical sub-stations and for the storage of materials. In reply the appellants submitted that the work was done in the licenced factory premises of NALCO and that the structural work was immovable and the fabrication of so-called goods in question could not be considered as manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (36) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal had held that fabrication of steel structurals did not amount to manufacture and that mere cutting to size, punching and galvanising of iron and steel items which were used in the construction of steel power transmission did not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Reference also made to the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE v. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 352 (Tribunal). 4. In reply Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR submitted that the fabrication work had been done by the appellants and they were the manufacturer of the goods which had been referred to in the show cause notice as beams, columns, stair cases, platform etc. It was his view that these items are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions as referred to in para 4 of their order the Tribunal held that the activity carried out by the appellants could not come within the purview of the manufacture. 7. In the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) the Supreme Court had held that the marketability of the goods was essential for their dutiability. 8. We find that in this case the process undertaken were in the nature of intermediate processes and there is nothing on record to show that the items fabricated had assumed a definite shape which could be of use to general customers. We also find that whatever fabrication work was done it was done within the premises of the customers. The goods had not assumed the shape of any specific item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
