9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the item viz. Cross arms is inter alia disputed. 3. Heard Shri A.K.J. Nambiar, learned Advocate for appellants . He submits that as far as dutiability of the cross arms are concerned, this very tribunal by its Final Order No. 1124 1125/98, dated 8-6-1998 has held that the same are not dutiable as no process of manufacture under Central Excise Act is involved. He submits that the said decision was taken in appellants own cases. He submits that if cross arms are held as non-excisable goods, then the value of clearance of cross arms is to be excluded from the computation of total clearances for the purposes of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 claimed by them. In that case, both the appellants would be well within the exemption limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds excisable to excise duty. (ii) In the case of Tansi Engineering Works v. C.C.E. as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 407 (Tribunal) wherein the Bench held that cutting and punching holes and angles, channels, etc does not amount to manufacturing as no new commodity is brought into existence. The Bench also referred to the amended definition of manufacturing and also to the Tariff Heading 73.08 and observed that neither the section nor the chapter nor the description specify the process of cutting and punching of angles and channels as amounting to manufacture . (iii) Vindhya Paper Mills v. C.C.E. as reported in 1988 (97) E.L.T. 298. In this case also it was held that mere cutting angles, other shapes and sections of steel into required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Engineering as well as in the case of Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Moti Laminates. He submits that both these judgments have been confirmed in the case of C.C.E. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Workshop. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the issue has been settled by a large number of judgments as cited by ld. Advocate. Bombay High Court judgement also in the case of Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. deals on the same point and the points raised by ld. DR has also been dealt with in Tansi Engineering Works and in the case of C.C.E. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Workshop. In view of these judgments, we hold that the Commissioner was not justified in not following the ratio of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
