1992 (7) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process of straightening, cutting, bending, and galvanizing duty-paid steel angles and channels amounts to manufacture for Central Excise duty.
2. Classification of items under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Levy of duty on the manufacture and clearance of transmission towers.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The dispute in the appeals revolved around whether the processes of straightening, cutting, bending, and galvanizing duty-paid steel angles and channels constitute manufacturing for the purpose of attracting Central Excise duty. The Department argued that these activities amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue 2:
In Appeal No. 3870/90/B1, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were served a notice proposing to classify the items under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority upheld this classification, which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants contested this classification, leading to the appeal.

Issue 3:
In Appeal No. E/3637/90/B1, the appellants faced a show-cause notice proposing a duty levy on the manufacture and clearance of transmission towers. The Adjudicating Authority held that the structures and parts of structures for fabrication of transmission line towers are excisable under sub-heading 7308.90. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) affirmed this decision, prompting the appellants to appeal.

The learned Counsel argued that the processes undertaken by the appellants did not result in the creation of a new commercial commodity to warrant a levy under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They cited relevant case law to support their contention.

The learned D.R. contended that the processed items were identifiable as structures of transmission towers, internationally recognized and specifically covered by Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. He argued that the processed raw materials were capable of being readily fitted into structures and commonly known as structurals, thus constituting manufacture.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, referred to previous decisions in similar cases. It was held that the processes undertaken by the appellants did not amount to manufacture, as established in their own case and supported by relevant case law. The reliance on a specific case by the Department was deemed irrelevant, and it was concluded that the appellants' processes did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, determining that the processes carried out by the appellants did not constitute manufacture for the purpose of Central Excise duty.