TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 73.08 that ipso facto does not mean that the process amounts to manufacture. The Revenue has to further prove that the process undertaken amounts to manufacture and also that the resultant products are marketable. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the process undertaken by the appellant, viz. punching, welding, trimming, drilling of holes, level cutting of edges and galvanizing do not amount to manufacture. - activity carried out by the petitioner is not a manufacturing activity and the petitioner is entitled to refund of the duty paid during 1st March 1986 to 31st December 1986, then the refund claim of the petitioner shall be disposed of as per the provisions of Section 11B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. The appellant filed a classification list No.54/86-87 dated 1.3.1986 claiming that the activities like punching, drilling of holes, welding, trimming and galvanizing carried out on duty paid angles, beams and channels etc. did not amount to manufacture. The classification list was approved ex parte by the Assistant Commissioner levying excise duty on the goods mentioned in the classification list. Consequently, the refund claims filed by the appellant were also rejected vide order dated 8.7.1987 as time barred. 2.1 Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court against the impugned order and against the rejection of the refund claims. The Hon ble High Court quashed the earlier order passed by the Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in 1993 (67) ELT 34 (SC); (v) CCE vs. Crescent Chemical Equipment reported in 1990 (48) ELT 458 (T); (vi) Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. CTO reported in AIR 1961 (SC) 412; (vii) CCE vs. Jayant Oil Mills reported in 1989 (40) ELT 287 (SC). He also submitted that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to and repugnant with the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that a particular process amounts to manufacture or not depends upon the facts of each case. He also submitted that the goods in question are parts of transmission tower, poles, welded masts etc. and other structural fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. This activity cannot be termed as manufacture and, therefore, no duty is chargeable on such items. Here it is pertinent to mention the definition of manufacture , which is reproduced herein below:- 2(f) manufacture includes any process, - (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or (iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents do not amount to manufacture as the MS rods, plates, angles, etc. remain the same even after the process have been carried out. Therefore, there is no new manufacturing process involved. In our view the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is legal and proper. There is no merit in the Revenue s appeals and the same are rejected. The learned counsel further submitted that the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Galvanising Engg. Indus. P. Ltd. (supra) before the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Hon ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as reported in 2015 (315) ELT A90 (AP). Further, galvanization does not bring a new commodity into existence as held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture and also that the resultant products are marketable. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the process undertaken by the appellant, viz. punching, welding, trimming, drilling of holes, level cutting of edges and galvanizing do not amount to manufacture. 7. Further, it is pertinent to mention that while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, the Hon ble High Court observed in para 7 of the judgment that the adjudicating authority shall decide the excisability of the goods and if it is held that the activity carried out by the petitioner is not a manufacturing activity and the petitioner is entitled to refund of the duty paid during 1st March 1986 to 31st Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
