9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the activity of manufacturing steel tubular poles which is classifiable under chapter sub-heading 7326.90 of the CET Act as a SSI unit enjoying the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93. It is noted that they were mostly doing job work for various customers by fabricating steel tubular poles from materials supplied to them. They also manufactured street light steel tubular poles from their own materials. The Department, after investigation, issued show cause notice calling upon them to explain as to why the process of "street light steel tubular poles" cleared by them without payment of duty should not be charged for duty, as they had suppressed the fact of its production and cleared it clandestinely. In the matter, it is also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was marketable. They were not marketing the poles as a new product and the 'pipes' were removed as 'pipes' only. He submits that they were not required to include the value of the clearances. The matter was covered by large number of judgments in their favour hence they carried a bona fide belief that the said activity did not amount to manufacture and hence larger period was not invokable. 4. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR pointed out to the findings and submits that after the activity of lengthening of tubular poles resulted in emergence of a new product with a different name and it had a different characteristic and hence it has to be considered as a different product and the new 'goods' were dutiable as held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7) E.L.T. 337 (T) had taken a view that this type of process of cutting, drilling or lengthening of poles or welding and structures did not amount to a process of manufacture. However, the Revenue being aggrieved with this order and with large number of similar orders have filed appeals before the Apex Court. A Larger Bench was constituted before the Apex Court to reconsider the judgment of its own Court and the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Man Structurals reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 401 has remanded the matter for de novo consideration to the Tribunal on the findings that the Tribunal had failed to consider the facts of each single appeal before it. It has been held that the Tribunal proceeded simply upon the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
