2001 (1) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of line materials under Chapter sub-heading 7308.90 as parts of structures.

Summary:
In the present case, the Revenue appeals were against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the refund claim of the respondent assessee for duty paid under protest on certain line materials. The assessee contended that the line materials were not goods and the processes involved did not amount to manufacturing. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the assessee, citing a Tribunal judgment that supported the view that the processes undertaken did not constitute manufacturing. The Revenue argued that the processes transformed the raw materials into distinct products like transformer structure materials, making them marketable goods. They relied on a Board's Circular to support their classification under 7308.90. The Revenue sought to set aside the Commissioner's order, claiming the items should be treated as goods.

During the hearing, the Revenue vehemently argued against the Commissioner's classification of the items as non-goods. On the other hand, the respondent Electricity Board's advocate emphasized that the items did not possess the characteristics of goods and were not marketable. Referring to previous Tribunal judgments and the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, the advocate argued that the processes involved did not result in the creation of new goods for classification under 73.08 of CETA. The advocate pointed out that the issue had been settled in previous cases and urged for the dismissal of the Revenue appeals, citing a writ petition filed by the respondent.

After considering the submissions and reviewing relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was no longer open to debate. The Commissioner's analysis of the processes involved, along with the non-marketable nature of the items, led to the conclusion that the items could not be classified under 7308.90 as parts of structures. Previous Tribunal decisions, including those involving similar products and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, supported the view that the processes did not result in the creation of new goods. As the issue had been extensively addressed in previous cases, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals based on the established legal principles and precedents cited by the respondent.