1992 (1) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndents purchase duty-paid M.S. angles and flats etc. of specified sizes punch/drill and galvanise them. These M.S. angles are cleared from the factory as such and subsequently they are used in the power transmission tower at sites. They filed classification list No. 40/86-87 with effect from 1-3-1986 and classification list No, 126/87-88 with effect from 1-4-1987 and claimed the classification of the above products under Tariff Item 7210.10 on the ground that the process, namely, punching, drilling and galvanising does not amount to manufacture and therefore, the duty leviable is nil. The Asstt. Collector disagreed with appellants and classified the product under TI 7308.90 where the duty leviable is 15% ad valorem. On appeal, the Collector....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... plates and flats, namely, cutting to sizes, drilling (enabling bolting) welding (to facilitate further assembly at erection sites) and applying shop paint (to prevent rusting during storage) amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal on a consideration of the terms of the rate contract and the design and specifications observed that the appellants transport raw steel from Bokaro Steel Plant and maintain an account which means that they have to perform processes on raw steels. It was observed by this Tribunal that if the work carried out in isolation by the appellants one may lead to conclude that it does not constitute to manufacture but since the work carried on by the appellants is of highly intricate, specialised and technical nature it amoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he above order this Tribunal in Ajit India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 541 and in Aruna Industries v. CCE (supra) it was held that cutting, welding and drilling does not amount to manufacture. The order of this Tribunal in Aruna Industries was followed by this Tribunal in appellant's own case (supra) and in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 360, Pratap Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE [Order No. 6/90-B1 and various other orders - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 539 (Tri.)l. 10. We may point out that the order of this Tribunal in Structural and Machineries which was followed in Richardson and Cruddas is distinguishable from the order of this Tribunal in Aruna Industries. In the order of Structurals and Machineries this Tribunal h....