TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclaration to this effect on 25/09/2000. The issue in dispute concerns their procuring raw materials, viz. MS Bars and HA steel ribbed strips falling under Chapter72 of the Central excise Tariff and subjecting them to the following processes: i) cutting to size of various lengths, viz. 5 metres, 5.5 metres, 6 metres, 6.5 metres, 7 metres and so on; ii) drilling/punching of hole ; and iii) galvanization. 2. The appellants have taken CENVAT credit on the bars/strips and paid duty on the said final products @16% ad valorem till 28-02-2004 and @ 8% ad valorem from 01-03-2004 to 30-06-2004. However they stopped paying duty from July 2004 onwards and sought to classify the said final products under CETH 7206.90....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff from M/s. SlFCO, Hyderabad. After cutting them to size, putting a hole in them and galvanising them, the said goods were sold to M/s. AIMIL Ltd., New Delhi. At that time the appellants were under the impression that even if they purchase duty paid goods under valid invoices from other manufacturers and galvanise them, it amounts to manufacture. Therefore they took CENVAT credit of the duty paid by them on the MS Bars / Strips and after galvanisation cleared the same on payment of Central Excise duty. ii. During the period from 01/01/2004 to 28/02/2004, they cleared the goods on payment of duty at 16% ad valorem. From 01/03/2004 to 30/06/2004, they paid duty at 8% ad valorem, availing the concessional rate of duty under Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Tariff schedule has come into force.) vi. As the processes to which the impugned goods were subjected to, did not amount to manufacture, no fresh liability of Central Excise duty had arisen. But the appellants have erroneously been paying Central Excise duty at 16% till 29/02/2004. As the rate of duty was reduced to 8% w.e.f. 01/03/2004 as per Notification No. 16/2004-CE dt. 28/02/2004, the appellants have paid Central Excise duty for the impugned goods at 8% amounting to R. 13,62,843/-. In spite of remittance of duty as above, the impugned order has confirmed the demand of the balance of differential duty i.e. (16% -- 8% already paid) amounting to Rs. 13,62,843/-, though they were not liable to pay any duty as the proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n after the decision of the Larger Bench o CESTAT in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad, Chandigarh, Kanpur and Chennai, there is no change in the position. He invited our attention to the relevant paragraph in the above decision which is reproduced herein below:- "The iron and steel raw material such as angles, plates, tubes etc. are used in making part of structures and they acquired a distinctly different shape to suit the structural design. For example, if iron or steel angles and plates are cut to make a steel table or chair which can be dismantled, it cannot be said that there are no goods manufactured because the iron and steel angles or plates remain such angles and plates though of different sizes and....