On-site fabrication of trusses, columns and purlins at construction site-whether "manufacture" for central excise; appeal dismissed.

Whether fabrication of trusses, columns and purlins at a construction site amounted to "manufacture" exigible to central excise duty turned on the situs and nature of the activity. Applying the Tribunal's precedent that on-site fabrication incidental to erection of structures is not "fabrication in a factory" and does not constitute manufacture, the SC held that the Collector's factual finding that the work was undertaken at site squarely attracted that principle, and the Tribunal's view was correct. The appeal was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment deals with conflicting views on whether making trusses, columns, and purlines amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the case of Aruna Industries but did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries.

Manufacture of Trusses, Columns, and Purlines:
The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the manufacturing of trusses, columns, and purlines constituted actual manufacture. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent set in the case of Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur [1986 (25) E.L.T. 580]. However, the Tribunal did not follow the decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1984 (17) E.L.T. 127].

Conflicting Views and Subsequent Judgments:
The Revenue argued that there were conflicting views within the Tribunal even after the impugned order. In a subsequent judgment, the case of Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1988 (38) E.L.T. 176] considered the case of Aruna Industries and determined its applicability to situations where fabrication work was carried out at the construction site. The Tribunal in the present case noted that fabrication work was indeed undertaken at the site, aligning it with the decision in Aruna Industries. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was deemed appropriate based on the factual findings.

Conclusion:
The appeal was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs, indicating that the Tribunal's decision regarding the manufacture of trusses, columns, and purlines was upheld based on the application of relevant precedents and factual considerations.

---