1981 (12) TMI 160 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against duty and penalty imposed by Collector of Central Excise
- Determination of whether processed goods are assessable to duty under Item 68 of the C.E.T.
- Argument regarding the nature of the goods processed by the appellants
- Reference to legal authorities supporting the contention that no duty is applicable
- Request for another opportunity to present technical personnel for further explanation
- Consideration of different contentions by the Board

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the duty and penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise on the grounds that the goods processed by the appellants resulted in the manufacture of assessable goods under Item 68 of the C.E.T. The appellants argued that they do not manufacture goods but semi-process steel material for erection at the site. They referenced legal authorities to support their claim that no duty is applicable. The appellants requested another opportunity to present technical personnel for further explanation, emphasizing that the processed materials were not liable to duty as they did not constitute goods in the conventional sense.

During the hearings, the appellants explained the nature of the products processed, highlighting that the processed steel materials were part of structures like columns, beams, etc., and only assumed a definite character after assembly at the site. They argued that the processed materials did not meet the criteria to be considered as goods, as they lacked a clear identity and commercial name. The appellants further contended that the Collector's orders did not specify the goods for which duty was demanded, and the processing carried out by them did not result in the manufacture of new goods attracting duty under Item 68 of the C.E.T.

The Board considered the contentions raised by the appellants and found that the processes carried out by them did not amount to the manufacture of new goods subject to duty. The Board noted that the processed materials retained the identity of the original steel material and were primarily used for erection jobs. It concluded that the processes involved were not for the production of goods attracting duty under the C.E.T. Item 68. Additionally, the Board found no indication of evasion of duty in the case. Consequently, the Board allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector's orders demanding duty and imposing a penalty.