2004 (11) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Aluminium sections not excisable goods; assembly not 'manufacture.' Commissioner's order affirmed.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus ARCHITECTURE INCORPORATED

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus ARCHITECTURE INCORPORATED - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 166 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Whether powder-coated Aluminium sections and aluminium door/window frames are excisable goods.2. Whether the process of converting aluminium sections into door/window frames amounts to 'manufacture.'3. Whether the door/window frames assembled on-site are marketable goods.Analysis:Issue 1: Excisability of Powder-Coated Aluminium Sections and Door/Window FramesThe appeal pertains to the demand for duty on powder-coated Aluminium sections and aluminium door/window frames. The Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the duty demand on both items, but the Board reviewed the decision, stating that converting aluminium sections into door/window frames constitutes 'manufacture.' The Board's order referenced a Supreme Court decision and classified the processed items under Heading No. 76.10 of the CETA Schedule. The respondents argued that the aluminium sections were not excisable based on the Apex Court's ruling and that the assembled frames were not marketable goods.Issue 2: Manufacture of Door/Window FramesThe process of assembling door/window frames on-site involved cutting powder-coated aluminium sections to size, fitting angle cleats, inserting vertical members, drilling holes, and fixing the frame to the wall and floor. The Tribunal observed that the frames were constructed in situ during building construction, forming part of an immovable structure. The Chartered Accountant highlighted the Board's guidelines, emphasizing that goods must have a new identity, character, and use distinct from inputs to be excisable and marketable. The Tribunal concurred that the frames did not qualify as marketable goods.Issue 3: Marketability of Door/Window FramesThe Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that the door/window frames, being integral parts of the building structure, were not marketable commodities and thus not excisable. The guidelines from the Board clarified that goods forming part of an immovable property, like the frames in question, do not fall under excisable category. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision in its entirety.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that powder-coated Aluminium sections and aluminium door/window frames were not excisable goods. The process of converting sections into frames did not amount to manufacture, and the frames, assembled on-site, were not marketable commodities but integral parts of the building structure. The decision upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appeal.