Fabrication of steel articles for shed construction was not manufacture, so the excise demand could not stand.

Fabrication by drilling, cutting, welding and placing steel articles in a shed was treated as fabrication, not manufacture, because the items did not emerge as excisable goods. On that factual basis, the proposed excise levy under the charging provision could not be sustained, and the demand notice was quashed as invalid and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned demand notice could stand when the activity undertaken was only fabrication/assembly of steel articles used in construction of a shed, and whether such articles amounted to goods liable to excise.

Analysis: The notice was examined on the footing that the articles supplied to the contractor were subjected only to drilling, cutting, welding and placement in the shed. On that factual basis, the activity was treated as fabrication and not manufacture of goods. Since the articles were used in construction and did not emerge as excisable goods, the proposed levy could not be sustained under the charging provision.

Conclusion: The demand notice was held to be untenable in law, invalid and without jurisdiction, and was quashed.

---