9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eon; and (b) in the case of the clearances (being clearances of the said goods of an aggregate value not exceeding rupees fifteen lakhs), immediately following the said first clearances of the value of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of four per cent ad valorem. This concession is conditional on the capital investment on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit, in which the said goods under clearance are manufactured, not exceeding ₹ 10 lakhs. Further the Notification is not to apply to a manufacturer if the total value of the goods cleared for home consumption by him or on his behalf from one or more factories in the preceding financial year had exceeded ₹ 30 lakhs. There is no dispute that during the year 1978-79 goods falling under T.I. 68 cleared by the appellants did not exceed this sum of ₹ 30 lakhs. There is also no dispute that the value of capital investment made by the appellants on plant and machinery at all material times did not exceed ₹ 10 lakhs. 3. It appears that by letter dated 10-4-1976 the appellants informed the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bokaro Steel City of their bring a factory engaged in the fabrica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector of Central Excise, Patna vide his order dated 20-9-1982 accepted small part of the appellants claim that fabrication work done by them at site in the premises of their clients M/s. Bharat Refractors Ltd., should be excluded from consideration in computing the value of goods cleared for home consumption. The value of this engineering work worked out to ₹ 33,773.72. About appellants claim for exclusion of ₹ 1,69,215.63 value of M.S. Pipes manufactured by them from duty paid plates and sheets, the Collector of Central Excise observed that he was inclined to deduct the job work charges by the appellants for the manufacture of pipes but he was unable to do so because the appellants had not given the break-up of the value though specifically instructed to do so. In the operative part of his order, he also ordered that if the appellants supply the break-up of the value charged by them for job work done in respect of M.S. Pipes (but under fittings) falling under Notification No. 69/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1973 the duty of equivalent value at 8% would be deducted from the duty demanded. The Collector further imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (five thousand) under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outside the scope of item 26AA of the C.E.T. There is also no dispute that these pipes fulfil the conditions set out in Col. Ill of the Notification for getting exemption from the whole of duty of excise. In fact, this part of the claim of the appellants was not disputed by the respondent. We, therefore, hold that job work value of ₹ 1,69,215.63 relating to M.S. Pipes and fittings should be excluded from consideration in determining the duty liability of the appellants. 7. Taking up the next, the appellants claim in respect of steel structures sold and done on job work basis totalling in all to ₹ 6,92,283.27, the appellants have urged that the operations carried out on structural steel plates and flats consisted of cutting to sizes, drilling holes (enabling bolting) welding (to facilitate further assembly at erection sites) and applying shop paint (to prevent rusting during storage). It has been strenuously urged by Shri Khaitan, learned Advocate for the appellants that these processes and operations did not result in the manufacture of a new goods. Articles in question did not undergo any material change in commercial parlance and in the trade the articles in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnels and flats. These are broadly known as structurals. In support of his argument, he relied on Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Agra Metal Perforators v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow - (1981) 48 S.T.C. 378. In this ruling, for the purpose of Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Sales Tax Act, it was held that the perforated iron sheets are different commercial commodity from iron or steel. Shri Khaitan distinguished this ruling from the facts of the present case and submitted that it was not applicable. It might be pointed out that the appellants have before us filed drawings and photographs in respect of some of the structural work carried out by them. They also filed a copy of their contract with M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant and the work orders for fabrications issued to them from time to time. We have carefully gone through all these documents and the citations relied on by the parties. The rate contract for fabrication of light/medium structures, describes the work as being for fabrication of light/medium structures according to drawings and specifications with one coat of shop paint and delivery of fabricated structures to the erection sites. Work orders dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumaran is only a legal argument and no specific notice to the appellants need have been given about this approach in the case. We find that the appellants from out of raw steel manufactured various products of highly intricate designs and specifications generally known as structurals. These cannot be called to be isolated act of cutting or welding not changing the identity of the raw material. Such an activity must be held to be manufacture and the product as goods . We find accordingly. The result of this finding would be that a sum of ₹ 6,92,283.27 would have to be included in the value of clearances made by the appellants during the year 1979-80. 9. As to appellants reliance on the Board s decision (supra) it is sufficient to say that the Board s decision is itself not categorical and clear. In the last part of the order, the Board did not rule out that the process amounted to manufacture of new goods but set aside the order. On the ground that there was no attempt to evade the duty. The Board s order does not help the appellants. 10. As to the Certificate given by Bokaro Steel Plant, we do not see how the certificate helps the appellants. Whether or not there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Radiant Industries v. Union of India, 1980 E.L.T. 21 (Rajasthan) and Metha Paint Works v. Dy. Supdt. of Central Excise, Madras High Court -Writ Petition Nos. 286 287 of 1969 were per in curiam as they did not take note of the Supreme Court s decision in Orient Weaving Mills case (Supra). Shri Khaitan, learned Advocate also relied on the following decisions : (i) M/s. Nirma Chemical Works v. Union of India 1981 - E.L.T. 517 (Gujarat); (ii) M/s. Bharat Kandsari Works - 1977 E.L.T. (J 185) G.O.I.; (iii) Sri Venkateswara Industries - 1981 E.C.R. 456 G.O.I.; (iv) M/s. Lakshmi Steel Rolling Mills - 1982 E.L.T. 539 G.O.I. 13. We have carefully considered this part of the arguments of the parties. The concession in Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated. 1-3-1979 is not dependent on taking out a licence. The demand of duty from the appellants is to be examined on the basis of effective rates of duty provided under the notification and on other conditions of notification being fulfilled which are not disputed in the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the notification and the precedents relied on by the parties, the Bench is of the view that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
