TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff: Classification of Iron/Steel Structures</h1> <h3>MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 125 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Tariff item 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. Classification of structures or parts of structures made of iron or steel under Heading 73.08.3. Determination of whether certain goods are exigible to excise duty.4. Consideration of whether specific manufacturing processes constitute the manufacture of excisable goods under Heading 73.08.Issue 1: The judgment addresses the interpretation of Tariff item 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff as per the directions of the Supreme Court in a previous case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal must determine whether the goods in question are new, identifiable goods resulting from manufacturing processes and are marketable to decide their excisability. The Tribunal was instructed to consider the specific criteria for determining excisability under Tariff item 73.08.Issue 2: The Tribunal reviewed various appeals concerning the classification of structures or parts of structures made of iron or steel under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. Relying on past decisions, the Tribunal found that the goods in question were excisable under the Tariff and set aside previous orders that deemed them non-excisable. However, the Tribunal's decision was later challenged due to the introduction of new sub-headings under Heading 73.08 post the earlier landmark decisions.Issue 3: The Tribunal disagreed with the previous decisions based on the absence of consideration for the new sub-headings introduced under Heading 73.08 after the earlier rulings. It emphasized that the preparation of goods for use in structures of iron or steel is a crucial factor for excisability under the Tariff. The Tribunal highlighted that the mere cutting or drilling of items is insufficient for excisability; instead, goods must be processed and prepared for use in a designed structure to fall under Heading 73.08.Issue 4: The Tribunal clarified that the location of the manufacturing process is not determinative of excisability, stating that the process need not occur in a registered factory to attract excise duty. It explained that the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Tariff Act is inclusive and does not mandate manufacturing in a factory. The Tribunal also emphasized the marketability aspect, stating that goods designed for specific structures have a market when ordered for those structures, making them excisable goods.In conclusion, the Tribunal referred the question of whether certain manufacturing processes constitute the manufacture of excisable goods under Heading 73.08 to a Larger Bench for decision, highlighting the need for clarity on the interpretation and application of the Tariff provisions in question.
TaxTMI 