1999 (3) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of appeal related to fabrication of iron and steel rocks.
2. Classification of various products under Central Excise law.
3. Consideration of manufacturing process for different items.
4. Interpretation of Circular of the CBE & C regarding classification.
5. Comparison with previous Tribunal judgments on manufacturing process.
6. Decision on Appeal No. E/3169/92 involving Clamps.

Analysis:
1. The advocate representing the appellant did not press for the appeal related to the fabrication of iron and steel rocks and prayed for its withdrawal. Consequently, Appeal No. E/3167/92 was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The appeal dealt with the classification of seven items under Central Excise law. The South Zone Bench had already considered five items and concluded that the process involved did not amount to manufacturing as no new commodity emerged. The names given to the products were for identification purposes only, not for commercial distinction.

3. Regarding the remaining two items, the advocate explained that the process involved in their manufacture was similar to the five items previously considered. The Tribunal found that no new product had been created, and the different names given were not indicative of distinct commodities in the market.

4. The Judicial Member relied on a Circular issued by the CBE & C regarding the classification of certain products as structures under a specific Tariff Heading. The defense of the impugned order was based on this Circular and the reasoning provided therein.

5. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including the case of Tansi Engineering Works v. C.C.E., which established that the process of cutting, drilling, and joining iron and steel products did not constitute manufacturing unless a new market-recognized commodity emerged. The appellants' naming of the products was deemed for identification purposes only.

6. In the case of Appeal No. E/3169/92, which involved Clamps, it was noted that the issue had already been addressed in Appeal E/3168/92. Therefore, the decision made for E/3168/92 was applied to E/3169/92, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant in both appeals.