2000 (1) TMI 122 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the processes undertaken for producing Stepped Transmission Poles amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act
The controversy in the appeals revolved around whether the processes involved in creating Stepped Transmission Poles constituted manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Act. The appellants argued that cutting and joining pipes of different diameters did not amount to manufacturing as the resultant product retained the character of pipes. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment regarding classification of goods. However, the Department contended that the poles resulting from the process were distinct from pipes and served a specific purpose not achievable with pipes alone. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's judgment focused on classification, not manufacture, and observed that the poles were indeed manufactured by applying processes to pipes. The Tribunal cited a previous case where it was held that poles with specific designs for electrical transmission were distinct from pipes and tubes. The Tribunal emphasized that the essence of 'manufacture' is transforming an item into a new product for marketable use, which was evident in this case. The resultant poles had a different name, character, and use, meeting the criteria for being considered a manufactured product. The Tribunal concluded that the processes undertaken by the appellants resulted in the manufacture of a new product, the Stepped Transmission Poles, and dismissed the appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's reasoning in determining that the processes involved indeed amounted to manufacturing under the provisions of the Act.