2001 (10) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the fabrication of various items from steel angles, MS Plates, MS Sheets, HR Sheets, and pipes amounts to manufacture and attracts excise duty.
Contestation of demand on the grounds of time-bar.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Fabrication and Excise Duty
The central issue in this appeal pertains to whether the fabrication of Cutting Edge, Plain Shuttering Plates, Well Steening Shuttering Plates, Well Curbe Shuttering Plates, Girder Shuttering Plates, Pier Shuttering Plates, Vertical Props, and Derricks from raw materials like steel angles, MS Plates, MS Sheets, HR Sheets, and pipes constitutes manufacturing, thereby making the products liable for excise duty. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the duty demand against the appellants, emphasizing that the transformation of raw materials into distinct products with specific names, identities, characters, and uses qualifies as manufacturing. The Tribunal noted that the products created by the appellants are marketable, movable items usable by interested parties for similar purposes, meeting the criteria for levying excise duty. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in C.C.E., Jaipur v. Man Structurals Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the emergence of new items with unique characteristics as a result of the fabrication process, underscoring the applicability of excise duty.

Issue 2: Time-Bar Contention
The appellants contested the demand on the basis of time-bar, arguing that they had not obtained a license or informed the Central Excise authorities about their manufacturing activities. The Revenue discovered the appellants' operations in 1987 during a factory visit, leading to the invocation of a longer period of limitation by the Department. The Tribunal upheld the Department's decision, ruling that the absence of licensing or prior notification, coupled with the detection of activities in 1987, justified the application of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' contention regarding the time-bar issue.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata, through its detailed analysis, affirmed the imposition of excise duty on the fabricated products, emphasizing the manufacturing nature of the process and the marketability of the items. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the Department's invocation of the longer limitation period due to the appellants' failure to notify authorities about their manufacturing activities, ultimately rejecting the appeal on both the grounds of manufacturing liability and time-bar contention.