Steel girder bridge manufacturing duty confirmed under Central Excise Act. Penalties waived on interpretational grounds.

The Tribunal confirmed the duty liability against the appellants for manufacturing steel girder bridges under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The parts of structures fell under Heading 73.08 and were subject to excise duty. While duty was upheld, penalties were not imposed due to interpretational issues, following precedents. O.P. Builders and Hillway Engg. Co. partially succeeded in their appeals, while Shri Mohan Lal Sharma's appeal was fully allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process involved amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The applicability of duty on parts of structures under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. The imposition of penalties under erstwhile Rules 173Q read with Section 35A and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the process involved amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The appellants, Hillway Engg. Co. and M/s O.P. Builders, are engaged in the manufacture of steel girder bridges and related parts. The process involves purchasing raw materials like steel plates, channels, iron rods, and angles, followed by measuring, cutting, drilling, welding, riveting, and assembling these pieces to form bridge sections. These activities were found to constitute the process of "manufacture" as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the bridge sections acquire a separate identity and distinct classification under Central Excise Tariff Heading 7308.10.

2. The applicability of duty on parts of structures under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff:

The Tribunal referenced the Larger Bench decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, which held that steel structures and parts of steel structures mentioned under Heading 73.08 are subject to excise duty in their movable state, notwithstanding their permanent fixation in structures. The decision clarified that parts of structures like bridges, bridge sections, doors, windows, and their frames, among others, are excisable goods. The Tribunal found that the subject items manufactured by the appellants fall under this category and thus are liable for excise duty.

3. The imposition of penalties under erstwhile Rules 173Q read with Section 35A and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The appellants argued that their activities were part of a works contract for erection of bridges and not subject to excise duty, citing judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that there was a lack of clarity and interpretational issues regarding the liability of duty on the subject items during the relevant period. Following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in CCE Vs. Jain Ganesh Processors, the Tribunal concluded that no penalties should be imposed on the appellants due to the interpretational nature of the issue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal sustained the confirmation of the liability of duty along with interest against the appellants but set aside the imposition of penalties. The appeals of O.P. Builders and M/s Hillway Engg. Co. were partly allowed, and the appeal of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma was allowed in full. The judgment was pronounced in Court on 17.8.2017.

---