2016 (1) TMI 762 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - manufacture - change in the scope of tariff entries - iron and steel structures like trusses, columns, staircase, windows and section etc. - These steel structures are commonly known as component parts of building/ shed. - Held that - We find that there is a change in the scope of tariff entries in respect of the impugned goods pre and post 1.3.1988. The CETH 73.08 effective from 1.3.88 clearly covers structures and parts of structures like bridges, towers, roofs, doors and windows of iron and steel, plates, rods, angles, sheds, sections etc. prepared for use in structure of iron and steel. Thus, the clear and specific classification of the impugned items were available with effect from 1.3.1988. Prior to that date, the classification was sought to be made under 7308 90 as Misc other articles of iron and steels . Similar issue came into consideration before this Tribunal in Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (2005 (5) TMI 168 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) relying on decision in the case of Aruna Industries 1986 (5) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI and in Wainganga Sahkari S Karkhana Ltd. 2002 (4) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , later confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2002 (4) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 2001 (2) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY , held that these goods are not excisable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Central Excise duty on steel structures and parts thereof.

Analysis:
1. Nature of activity and excise duty liability: The case involved a dispute over the excise duty liability on steel structures like trusses, columns, staircase, windows, and sections. The Revenue argued that these structures fell under CETH 7308.90 and were liable for excise duty as per section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They relied on various tribunal decisions to support their claim. However, the respondent contended that the period of dispute was before the introduction of a specific heading like 73.08 and cited relevant case laws to support their position. The Tribunal noted a change in the scope of tariff entries post 1.3.1988, where structures and parts of structures made of iron and steel were clearly classified. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and held that the impugned goods were not excisable before 1.3.1988.

2. Judicial precedent and decisions: The Tribunal referenced the decision in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., which was upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court. The Tribunal also mentioned the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. post 1.3.1988, where a similar issue was considered. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Honorable Supreme Court in a previous case, emphasizing that the issue was no longer open for debate. Based on these precedents and decisions, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3. Conclusion: After thorough examination of the arguments presented by both sides and considering the relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, thereby resolving the dispute regarding the excise duty liability on steel structures and parts thereof.