TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice dated 08-04-2005 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of differential duty for the period March 2004 to June 2004 Held that:- process undertaken by the respondents 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. - Demand set aside. - E/992/2006 - Final Order No. A/30514/2016 - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Narayana Swamy Naidu Advocate for the appellant. Shri R.R. Bangar, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent. ORDER The facts of the case are that the appellant we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1,40,000/- On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal. 3. The appellant was represented by Shri M Narayana Swamy Naidu, Advocate. The main submissions of the appellant can be summarised as follows: i. The appellants obtained Central Excise Registration Certificate No.2/97 of Tirupati-l Range of Tirupati Division, with intention of manufacturing MS Bars / Ribbed Steel Strips, galvanisation etc. but they could not manufacture the said goods, as they could not install the required machinery for this purpose. They were doing galvanising work on the goods of others on job work basis. They incurred heavy losses in business and closed their unit from 1999 to June, 2003. Their u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7211 . iv. They were subjected to the processes of cutting, drilling/punching holes and galvanisation. These processes did not amount to manufacture. Several judicial decisions in support of the said ground have been cited in the grounds of appeal and written submissions dated 16/05/2016. Consequently the said MS bars and HA steel ribbed strips continue to be classifiable under 7214 and 7211 respectively even after undergoing the above processes. v. It is further submitted that the process of galvanization of goods falling under any headings under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff did not amount to manufacture during the material period viz. March 2004 to which the impugned goods relates. (The process of galvanization of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 . He also contended that as per Chapter Note to Chapter 72 the process of galvanising is deemed process of manufacture and for these reasons the impugned order is correct and proper. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The crux of the dispute is whether the processes of cutting/sizing, drilling and galvanizing of MS Bars and HA Steel ribbed strips result in process of manufacture and that the final products necessitate being classified under Chapter Heading 73.08. On similar facts, the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Hyderabad Vs K .Ramachandra Rao Final Order No. 712/08 dated 19.06.2008 referred to the judgment in Mahindra Mahindra decision of Larger Bench 2005(190) ELT 301 (Tri-LB) held such processes do not amount to man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the issue, we find that the respondents received duty paid MS angles, rods, channels, plates etc. and the activity carried out by them amounts merely to drilling of holes and cutting them and these are sent to the various parties for manufacture of towers. In our view, the process undertaken by the respondents 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(Appeals) is legal and proper. There is no merit in the Revenue's appeals and the same are rejected. We do not find any reason to take a different view from the findings already recorded as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
