2010 (7) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Precedent the process of cutting into pieces, bending, punching, drilling, galvanising on duty paid angles, shapes, sections, used in their erection of towers and structures - Larger Bench decision High court decisions considered in Tribunal Larger Bench decision Supreme Court decision by taken into consideration by Larger Bench while deciding relevant matter - Larger Bench has decided the matter after taking into consideration the various decisions of the Supreme Court, relevant to decide the issue, merely because some of the decisions of the High Courts even though were not considered in the matter, cannot be a ground for the Division Bench to take a different view in the matter - decision of the Larger Bench in such cases, being binding on the Division Bench - consideration in the matter in hand stands answered by the Larger Bench, it is not expected from the Division Bench to deal with the matter merely because some of the High Courts have earlier taken some different views. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, Chandigarh 2005 -TMI - 49028 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - LB

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the process of cutting, bending, punching, drilling, and galvanizing on duty paid angles, shapes, sections used in the erection of towers and structures amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi stemmed from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Bhopal, on February 8, 2005. The impugned order concluded that the activities of cutting into pieces, bending, punching, drilling, and galvanizing on duty paid materials used in the construction of towers and structures constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant's counsel acknowledged that the issue was previously referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, where the Larger Bench ruled in favor of the Department, deeming such activities as manufacturing. The counsel highlighted that the Larger Bench did not specifically address the decisions of various High Courts that were relied upon during arguments. Despite this, the Tribunal emphasized that the Larger Bench's decision, considering Supreme Court judgments, was binding on the Division Bench. The Tribunal clarified that the Division Bench should not deviate from the Larger Bench's decision merely due to differing views from certain High Courts.

Consequently, since the matter fell within the purview of the Larger Bench's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.'s case, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with the Larger Bench's ruling, highlighting the binding nature of such decisions on subsequent cases.