TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the activity of cutting, punching etc. from MS Rods, MS Channels, etc. for producing transformed structure does not amount to manufacture - appeal allowed. - Appeal No. E/171 & 172/2008 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate for appellants Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per : Justice Dr. Satish Chandra Both the appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No: 396/25V/2007/COMMR/RH dated 15/11/2007. The period of dispute is April 2001 to March 2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of fabrication of structure such as skylights, space fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both the sides. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformed structural materials. These products are manufactured by them out of duty paid material by cutting, punching, etc., of angles, bars and similar fabrication angles/rods, etc. In an identical case, CCE, Madurai v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) referred by the Counsel, the Tribunal has taken the view that such an activity did not amount to manufacture. In that case also, structural materials were prepared from the MS rods, MS channels, and mild steel flats. The case of the appellants squarely stands covered by the ratio of law laid down in that case and as such, no duty demand could be confirmed against them. That order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has no marketability except to the customer concern. 10. It may be mentioned that in the case of Executive Engineer, Fabrication Workshop MPSEB v. CCE 2004 (178) ELT 440 (T), the Tribunal observed that the activity of cutting, punching etc. from MS Rods, MS Channels, etc. for producing transformed structure does not amount to manufacture. In the case of Sunflag Iron Steel v. ACCE - 2003 (162) ELT 105 (Bom), the jurisdictional Bombay High Court observed that such fabricated material is not excisable goods. The aforesaid order was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in {2004 (164) ELT A178 (SC)}. 11. Similar view was observed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji 2005 (192) ELT 92 (Bom) where it was obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
