1992 (1) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the process of cutting, welding, punching, and galvanizing duty-paid angles, channels, flats of iron and steel amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:
The case revolved around determining whether the processes of cutting, welding, punching, and galvanizing duty-paid iron and steel products constituted "manufacture." The respondents argued that these processes did not amount to manufacture, while the Asstt. Collector classified the products under a tariff item with a duty leviable at 15% ad valorem.

The main contention raised was the alleged conflict of opinion between different tribunal orders. The appellants argued for a reference to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions in various cases. However, the respondents contended that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Tribunal in their own case and other instances, negating the need for a reference.

Two specific orders were highlighted to showcase the conflicting views. One case involved processes on structural steel plates and flats, where the Tribunal deemed the intricate, specialized, and technical nature of the work as constituting manufacture. In contrast, the other case held that cutting, welding, and drilling did not amount to manufacture, emphasizing that the identity of the original product was not lost through these processes.

The Tribunal differentiated between the two orders, emphasizing that the processes carried out by the appellants in the present case did not involve the same level of complexity and technicality as in the cases where manufacture was established. It was noted that the appellants directly purchased duty-paid iron and steel products, performed limited processes, and did not engage in highly specialized operations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal relied on its previous order in the respondent's own case, where it was held that cutting, welding, punching, and galvanizing of duty-paid angles did not amount to manufacture. As a result, the appeals were dismissed based on the established precedent, and there was no need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench.

The judgment was delivered by Member (J) S.V. Maruthi, with additional notes from Members (T) P.C. Jain and P.K. Kapoor. The appeals were dismissed in line with the Tribunal's previous ruling, providing a clear resolution to the issue at hand.