Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
CESTAT affirms manufacturing status for tower construction activities under Central Excise Act The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Bhopal's decision that activities like cutting, bending, punching, ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT affirms manufacturing status for tower construction activities under Central Excise Act
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Bhopal's decision that activities like cutting, bending, punching, drilling, and galvanizing on duty paid materials for tower and structure construction constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal reiterated the binding nature of the Larger Bench's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.'s case, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court judgments. As the matter aligned with the precedent, the appeal was dismissed, underscoring the authoritative impact of prior decisions on subsequent cases.
Issues: - Whether the process of cutting, bending, punching, drilling, and galvanizing on duty paid angles, shapes, sections used in the erection of towers and structures amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi stemmed from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Bhopal, on February 8, 2005. The impugned order concluded that the activities of cutting into pieces, bending, punching, drilling, and galvanizing on duty paid materials used in the construction of towers and structures constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The appellant's counsel acknowledged that the issue was previously referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, where the Larger Bench ruled in favor of the Department, deeming such activities as manufacturing. The counsel highlighted that the Larger Bench did not specifically address the decisions of various High Courts that were relied upon during arguments. Despite this, the Tribunal emphasized that the Larger Bench's decision, considering Supreme Court judgments, was binding on the Division Bench. The Tribunal clarified that the Division Bench should not deviate from the Larger Bench's decision merely due to differing views from certain High Courts.
Consequently, since the matter fell within the purview of the Larger Bench's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.'s case, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with the Larger Bench's ruling, highlighting the binding nature of such decisions on subsequent cases.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
