Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2005 (5) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by the Supreme Court. 3. In these cases, the show-cause notices were issued to the appellants demanding duty in respect of columns, beams, trusses purlines etc. on the ground that the fabrication of these items amounts to manufacture and are classifiable under Heading 73.08 of the CET. 4. The contention of the appellants is that they are simply cutting, drilling, binding the channels; angles and these are assembled at a work site and then erected in exact respective position. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. This issue is whether the fabrication of column, beams, is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahakari S. Karkhana Ltd. - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.). On the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries was not considered and again matter was remanded in regard to excisability of the goods. Similarly, in the case of ACC Ltd., (supra) after taking into consideration the fact that the goods in question were fabricated in the factory and thereafter removed to the site, the Tribunal held that the goods in question are excisable. In this case also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries was not considered. 6. We find that the issue of excisability of the goods which are under dispute in the present appeal is decided by the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 580. In this case the Tribunal held that goods in question are not excisable goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....excised. Any steel member may be put to work as a truss - it has no definite shape or size, a different roof or bridge will require a different method of trussing. To repeat, there is nothing like a truss - it is only a steel or concrete or wooden member that trusses up some incumbent weight. 27. A purlin is nothing but a roof beam, generally perpendicular to the trusses or rafters : it is also made from steel products which are manufactured in steel factories. It may be cut, drilled to take bolts, or treated in several ways, but always to fit it for that particular job it is to be put to. The steel product remains what it was - an angle, a channel etc. 28. A column is nothing but a larger member of sheets, drilled, sized,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oes not cease to be a sheet - one can still see it as a sheet, the shape it took at the steel factory. The 'I' beam retains this shape but in perhaps, a shorter length because it can also see the 'I' beam doing the work for which its shape best fits it for, a shape it was given by design at the steel factory, because in these applications an 'I' does it better than any other shape. 30. All the shapes of the steel products are given with this objective - that when the product is used, it will be used by reason of its shape to the best advantage. The 'T' shape, the 'I' shape and the 'L' shapes are no mere engineering flights of fancy. Their virtues were discovered by long and hard exper....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lete or finished structure - the shed, building, the cage, the bridge : they do not form a merchandise; they are just parts of a larger, differently designated unit. The man who buys the structure will not buy the truss, though there may be dozens of them - he will buy only the structure the whole construction". 7. The Tribunal in the case of Wainganga Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. C.C.E., Nagpur - 2002 (50) RLT 177 following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries. Revenue filed appeal against this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue reported as C.C.E., Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decis....