Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CC&CE, Hyderabad-III Versus M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.

2016 (7) TMI 799 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Manufacture - fabricated structure - classification - fabricated structures like purlins, monorails, beams, girders, columns, bracings, platforms, cable ends, etc. - Held that:- the steel structures were undeniably fabricated at site, by assembling them piece by piece, the structure came into existence as they were erected at site and as correctly held by adjudicating authority, the structures fabricated are fixed to the earth. - Demand set aside. - Decided against the revenue. - E/1066/2006 - F .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g under the control of the Ministry of Steel & Mines. The respondents are engaged in Civil, Structural and Construction engineering. The respondents had entered into a Works Contract dated 03/04/1984 with M/S. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) for erection of Stage II of the Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project at Ramagundam. 2.2. The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad issued Show-cause notice OR No.30/88 Adjn. dated 17/03/1988 stating that the Noticee had fabricated struc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

djudicated the matter and passed Order-in-Original No.2/89 dated 08/02/1989 and confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 1,94,45,347.65. The respondent assessee filed Appeal No. E/1513/1989 before the CEGAT, New Delhi (Special Bench). The Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order No. 115/90 B1 dated 25/06/1990 set aside the order and allowed the appeal. The Revenue challenged the above order of the CEGAT by filing Civil Appeal No.7352/93. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal vide order date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the above order. 3. The learned AR Ms.Changsen who appeared for the appellant argued that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the activity does not amount to manufacture. She relied upon the judgment laid in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CCE [2005(190) ELT 301 (Tri. LB)] to canvass the position that the fabrication work undertaken by M/s. HSWCL / respondent undoubtedly amounts to manufacture and the goods so fabricated were clearly classifiable under the Heading 7308.90. 4. The respon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ding 7308.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and accordingly are liable to duty. 5.1. The foremost submission made on the part of respondent by the learned counsel Shri M.S. Nagaraja is that Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, came into force w.e.f. 28/02/1986 vide Notification No.10/86 CE dt. 05/02/1986. The period involved is from 4/1984 to 3/1987. Therefore the steel structurals could not have been classified under CTH 7308.90 of CETA, 1985. That the classification of steel structural prior t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case under appeal. 6. We have gone through the appeal records and heard both sides carefully. 7. In the first place, consistent view has been taken in a number of High Court and Tribunal judgment that prior to 01/03/1988 being the date on which the tariff item 7308 was brought into effect, the process of converting bare angle into prepared angle will not amount to manufacture. 8. We also find merit in the appellants' contention that even in case the department contends that steel structure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uipments, pipes and tubes etc. for their assembly/installation/erection /integration Iinter-connectivity on foundation/civil structures etc. at site will not be considered as excisable goods for imposition of Central Excise Duty. 9. Since the above CBEC Order also clarified that to dispose of pending cases based on the above said clarification and passed instructions, circulars and orders of the Board on this issue may be considered as suitably modified, it is obvious that the said order has ret .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

awn attention to the Larger Bench decision in Mahindra & Mahindra case and that its' ratio is applicable to the instant case also. We do not find ourselves in agreement with this contention. The Larger Bench considered the demand of duty in a case where parts of structures where first fabricated on the ground and thereafter were used in the designed structures which were erected by permanently fixing them in such structures. The relevant portion of the judgment reproduced below is notewo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version