2008 (6) TMI 584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per the contract entered into electricity board and others and also engaged in erection of electric power transmission towers. They stated that mere cutting to size, drilling holes and galvanizing of duty paid MS angles and MS plates do not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner has examined the issue threadbare and has examined large number of judgements to uphold the assessee's plea that such an activity does not amount to a process of manufacture as no new article bearing a different name use or character has arisen. This is under challenge. 2. Learned SDR submitted that the Commissioner's order is required to be set aside and appeal is to be allowed while learned counsel filed written submissions. He also filed Final Order No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lower authority held that the items cleared by the Respondents are parts of structures and their tariff heading 7308.90 and therefore, held that they are liable for Excise duty. Therefore the confirmed that the duty already paid under protest. However, the Respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on various judicial decisions came to the conclusion that the parts fabricated by the Respondents, namely MS angles, MS rods, MS plates are not dutiable. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore they have come before the Tribunal for relief. 3. In the 'Grounds of Appeal' by the Revenue, it has been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ks vs. CCE, Tirupati [2007 (210) ELT 171 (S.C.)] (iii) CIT Kerala vs. Tara Agencies [2007 (214) ELT 491 (S.C.)] In the light of the above, it was urged that mere cutting of MS plates, angles, channels and joists, punching holes and galvanization does not transform the subject goods into a new and different product with a distinctive name, character and use. The learned Advocate also relied on the following case laws:- (i) CCE Pune vs. Teleco [2006 (202) ELT 812 (T) (ii) OIO No. 18/2005 dated 19.08.2005 passed by CCE Hyderabad - III, Commissionerate (iii) T.A. No. 19/2004 dated 25.11.2005 of AP Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (iv) Karnataka Electricity Board vs. CCE [2003 (158) ELT 585 (T) (v) BEHL Associates vs. CCE, New Delhi [2002 (14....