Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. M/s. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 496 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1997 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E./739/89-BL in F.O. No.E./866/97-B)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1997 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E./739/89-BL in F.O. No.E./866/97-B)
Petitioner: Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur
Respondent: M/s. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 496 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1997 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E./739/89-BL in F.O. No.E./866/97-B)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1997 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E./739/89-BL in F.O. No.E./866/97-B)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, CJI., N. SANTOSH HEGDE, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 18, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Mr. M.P. Devnath and Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Act, 1944
Central excise duty – Concept of manufacture – Assessee undertaking fabrication of trusses, columns and purlines at the construction site – Whether such operations amounted to manufacture. Held, decision in Aruna Industries case (1986) 25 ELT 580 applied and such operations not being fabrication in a factory would not attract excise duty. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (38) ELT 176) (Para 3)
2. Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur (1986 (25) ELT 580) (Para 1)
3. Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt., Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. (1984 (17) ELT 127) (Para 1)
2. Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur (1986 (25) ELT 580) (Para 1)
3. Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt., Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. (1984 (17) ELT 127) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The tribunal was concerned with whether making trusses, columns and purlines amounted to manufacture. The tribunal followed an earlier decision
in the case of Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur (1986 (25) ELT 580). It did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt., Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. (1984 (17) ELT 127).
2. It is submitted on behalf of the revenue that there are conflicting views taken by the tribunal and that such conflicting views have been taken even after the impugned order.
3. In one of these subsequent judgments, in the case of Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (38) ELT 176), the case of Aruna Industries (supra) has been considered and found to be applicable to a situation where the assessee was erecting the structures at the construction site and fabricating materials on the spot; it was therefore found that this could not be considered to be fabrication in a factory. Now, in the instant case, the tribunal noted that it had been found as a fact by the collector that the assessee had undertaken fabrication work at site. This was a case, therefore, to which the decision of Aruna Industries (supra) applied and the tribunal’s order cannot be faulted.
4. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. The tribunal was concerned with whether making trusses, columns and purlines amounted to manufacture. The tribunal followed an earlier decision
in the case of Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur (1986 (25) ELT 580). It did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt., Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. (1984 (17) ELT 127).
2. It is submitted on behalf of the revenue that there are conflicting views taken by the tribunal and that such conflicting views have been taken even after the impugned order.
3. In one of these subsequent judgments, in the case of Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (38) ELT 176), the case of Aruna Industries (supra) has been considered and found to be applicable to a situation where the assessee was erecting the structures at the construction site and fabricating materials on the spot; it was therefore found that this could not be considered to be fabrication in a factory. Now, in the instant case, the tribunal noted that it had been found as a fact by the collector that the assessee had undertaken fabrication work at site. This was a case, therefore, to which the decision of Aruna Industries (supra) applied and the tribunal’s order cannot be faulted.
4. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
