2019 (3) TMI 1501 - AT - Central Excise

Process amounting to manufacture or not - fabrication of various items - section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The issue decided in appellant own case MCCOY ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., AJAY ARTREYA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI V 2018 (2) TMI 792 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where reliance placed in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji 2005 (4) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY where it was observed that the cutting / drilling / welding steel channels angles, etc. and thereafter erecting, them does not amounts to excisable production. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding duty demand on fabrication activities under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No: SB (58 to 60) 58 to 60/MV/2011 dated 29th April 2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The case involved the fabrication of roof structures falling under specific subheadings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue alleged that the fabrication activities undertaken by the respondent constituted manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and were thus dutiable. The demands for duty were confirmed with interest and penalty. The respondent appealed the adjudication order, which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that the impugned order confirming the demand did not consider both classification and jurisdiction issues, referencing a previous judgment. On the other hand, the Chartered Accountant representing the respondent argued that a previous Tribunal order had already decided that the fabrication activities did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on similar facts.

The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions from both sides and referred to its previous decision in a similar case. The Tribunal highlighted that the fabrication work was outsourced to a sub-contractor, and the structures were assembled at the customer's site, with no marketability beyond the customer. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that activities like cutting, welding, and assembling did not constitute manufacture. The Tribunal also mentioned previous judgments by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court supporting this interpretation.

Based on the precedent set by its previous decision and the legal principles established in the cited case law, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and concluded that the fabrication activities in question did not amount to dutiable manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.