2010 (6) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;     Shri V. Srikanth, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T).]. - Heard both sides. The Department had issued a show-cause notice demanding duty on MS street light tubular poles manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. It has been contended on behalf of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp; Hindustan Poles Corporation v. CCE - [2006] 6 RC 403 3. He states that in these decisions, it has been held that joining one pipe into another for making a pole does not result in manufacture of a new product and hence no duty is payable on poles manufactured out of pipes. 4. Shri C. Dhanasekaran, learned SDR appearing for the Department states that the decisions cited by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question in this case is different from the ones considered in the cited decisions which dealt with transmission poles made by joining of pipes. We also find that the authorities below have given a specific finding that the MS street light tubular pole manufactured by the appellants is a new marketable commodity different from pipes. We, further, find that the original authority has taken into ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s have manufactured a new marketable product namely MS street light tubular poles which is different from pipes and tubes, we hold the same to be excisable. Hence, the duty demanded classifying the product under Heading 7326.90 is upheld. Since the appellants suppressed the fact of manufacture and have manipulated invoices suppressing the actual value and the length of the poles, we also hold that....