TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the case of M/s Aruna Industries v. C.C.E., Guntur [1986 (25) E.L.T. 580] has held that for a manufacturing process to take place change of identity of product is a must, cutting, welding, drilling do not tantamount to manufacture and that assembling of structural and shapes for building construction is not manufacture. It is also held in that case that the goods which are not manufactured or not moved from the factory are not excisable and the factory did not include construction site the trusses and drillings were not items of manufacture. 2. Arguing for the Revenue Shri D.S. Negi, SDR submitted that name, character and end-use of the product is relevant to decide the issue. The items trusses and purlines are altogether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it shows that they are dutiable items and even prior to 1-3-1988 they were known different from the angles and the trade circles and accordingly they are different items from the original items. 3. Shri Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted that Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that cutting, welding and putting holes does not amount to manufacture. He said that the issue involved in this case has been consequently covered by the decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. [1997 (95) E.L.T. 212] and same has been followed in the case of Kinetic Honda Motors Ltd. [1996 (81) E.L.T. 48]. In the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., the shed is built by trusses columns, girders, purlines and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in favour of the assessee and in the absence of any contrary decision of the Apex Court, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector. We are also not convinced with the arguments advanced by the Revenue that the decisions referred to above by the ld. Counsel are not applicable to the facts of the case. In the view we have taken the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Appeal No. E/273/91-B1 4. Similar arguments have been advanced on behalf of the appellants in this appeal and countered by the arguments by Shri D.S. Negi, SDR referring to the above decisions. 5. In view of the foregoing discussions and following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Aru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
