Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (5) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4, L.P.A. No. 133/94, L.P.A. No. 134/94, L.P.A. No. 135/94 and L.P.A. No. 136/94, as common questions of law and facts were involved in all these appeals. 3.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4.Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are mentioned herein below. The respondents in these appeals (petitioners in the main petitions) had constructed sheds in their respective factories with the aid of duty paid product and material. The sheds were built with the help of trusses, columns, girders, purlins and other articles. The appellants ( respondents in the main petition ) felt that this construction of sheds is not fabrication of certain articles as noted above, but amounts to manufacturing of the said articles. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that the definition of - `manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Act specially after the amendment is wide enough to cover even such an activity of construction of sheds and therefore the appellants were justified in issuing the show cause notices to the respondents and calling upon them to pay the Excise Duty. 7.The learned Single Judge after hearing all the petitions together disposed of them by a common order and held that the demand proposed by the show cause notices is unpropitious on facts and untenable in law. The activity, ex facie of fabrication cannot be branded as of process of manufacture of goods or products to put it under the umbrella of charging section. Consequently, the show cause notices issued to the respondents have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted in Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, U.P. [1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (SC) = 1995 (56) E.C.R. 209 (S.C.)]. They have submitted that in view of the ratio of this judgment of the Supreme Court erection of the sheds which are embedded on the ground and have never been taken out of the factory for being sold in the market and solitary acts of the construction of sheds, for expansion of their factories will not amount to manufacturing of goods. 10.The Apex Court has fixed two basic norms for levying duty under the Act : (i) that any article must be a goods and that (ii) it should be marketable or capable of being brought to market . It has also been held that the goods which are attached to the earth and thus become imm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates