2018 (1) TMI 159 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - Appellants carried out fabrication activity across all parts of the country and offered complete structure and execution and installation of the structure - Held that - the appellants have no workshop to carry out the fabrication like cutting, welding, grinding etc. The appellants gave the work to a sub-contractor who assembles structure at the customer site. The structure constructed at the customer s site has no marketability except to the customer concern - in the case of Executive Engineer, Fabrication Workshop MPSEB v. CCE 2004 (7) TMI 228 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , the Tribunal observed that the activity of cutting, punching etc. from MS Rods, MS Channels, etc. for producing transformed structure does not amount to manufacture - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 15/11/2007 for the period April 2001 to March 2005.
2. Whether the fabrication activity attracts excise duty.
3. Applicability of earlier Tribunal orders and Supreme Court judgments.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 15/11/2007
The appellants challenged Order-in-Original No: 396/25V/2007/COMMR/RH dated 15/11/2007, covering the period from April 2001 to March 2005. The dispute arose regarding the fabrication of structures like skylights, space frames, and glazing systems made from metal sheets and glass curtain walls. The Department demanded excise duty and imposed penalties on the Director, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

Issue 2: Whether the fabrication activity attracts excise duty
The appellants contended that they did not engage in the manufacturing of materials at their premises. Instead, they subcontracted the fabrication, erection, and installation tasks to labor contractors using raw materials. They argued that this activity did not attract excise duty, citing precedents such as the case of Executive Engineer, Fabrication Workshop, MPSEB v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal had previously ruled that activities like cutting, punching, and assembling structures from materials did not amount to manufacturing for excise duty purposes.

Issue 3: Applicability of earlier Tribunal orders and Supreme Court judgments
The appellants relied on previous Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument that their fabrication activities were not subject to excise duty. They cited cases like Commissioner of Central Excise v. Executive Engineer, Fabrication Workshop, MPSEB and Sunflag Iron & Steel v. ACCE, where it was held that similar activities did not constitute excisable production. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that their fabrication activities did not attract excise duty as they did not amount to manufacturing for excise duty purposes. The decision was based on precedents and legal principles established in previous Tribunal orders and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the fabricated structures were not excisable goods.