Appeal allowed as transforming MS rods and channels not manufacturing, duty demand set aside

The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal upholding duty demand with penalty. The issue was whether producing transformed structures from MS rods, MS channels constitutes manufacture. The adjudicating authority ruled against the appellants, affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Counsel referenced a Tribunal's decision in a similar case, supported by SC precedent, holding such activity not amounting to manufacture. As the appellants' products were made from duty-paid material through fabrication processes, the duty demand was set aside, and the appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
Whether the activity of producing transformed structure from MS rods, MS channels, etc. amounts to manufacture.

Summary:

The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal that upheld the duty demand with penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The issue was whether the appellants' activity of producing transformed structure from MS rods, MS channels, etc. amounts to manufacture. The adjudicating authority ruled against the appellants, which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Counsel argued that a previous Tribunal's Final Order in a similar case favored the appellants, citing CCE, Madurai v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The Tribunal had held that such activity did not amount to manufacture. The appellants' products were made from duty-paid material through cutting, punching, etc., of angles, bars, and similar fabrication. The Tribunal's previous decision in CCE, Madurai v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which was upheld by the Apex Court, supported the appellants' case, leading to the setting aside of the duty demand against them.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed.

---