TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (5) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Rounds etc. to different manufacturers after obtaining due permission under Rule 56C and received back the finished goods like fabricated steel structures classifiable under Tariff Item 68 from such secondary manufacturers under Rule 56C are liable to Central Excise duty or not. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for alleged contravention of Rule 56C read with Rules 9, 173F and 173G for removal of 26,533.179 MT of fabricated steel structures falling under Tariff Item 68 received from different secondary manufacturers without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 75,88,680.23 during the month of January, 1983. It was also pointed out in the show cause notice that why the demand issued under D.D. 2 No. 3258, dated 26-7-83 sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Accordingly, contravention of Rule 9 does not arise and they have also not contravened Rule 173F as they did not manufacture any new excisable commodities. It was also pointed out that since no duty was payable on the materials processed and sent to site and as such they did not determine any duty. The copies of such gate passes, despatch challans were forwarded to the proper officer of the Central Excise. It was also contended that the violation of Rule 173 under sub-rule (1) to this rule was specified in the show cause notice and as such they were unable to state anything in this regard. They further claimed that in the show cause notice a reference to DD-2 had been drawn and it appeared that DD-2 had been issued prior to the show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the facts and has referred to the show cause notice which was issued on 23-7-1983. Shri Mookherjee has argued that the appellant's case is fully covered by a judgment of the tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries v. C.C.E., Guntur reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 580 where the Tribunal had held that making of structural shapes like trusses, beams, girders, etc. from raw materials such as plates, channels, angles by cutting, drilling, riveting etc. and assembling structural shapes for construction of a building or shed is a fabrication activity and not a manufacturing process and identity of the original products is not lost and no transformation takes place. It was also held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Rajhans has argued that the appellant cannot have the benefit of Notification No. 118/ 75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 as the goods were not manufactured in the appellant's factory and were not also used there. The goods were manufactured outside and if at all the goods were manufactured in some other factory, the appellant should have followed the Chapter 10 procedure which has not been followed. He has again referred to the following Judgments:- (i) Formica India Division, Pune v. C.C.E., Bombay reported at 1984 (17) 590. (ii) State v. Biswanath Agarwalla and Another reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. (Orissa) - Central Excise Rule 9 for contravention thereof clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty is required and not clandesti....