GENERAL MECHANICAL WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order, held that bending, cutting, grinding, punching holes, bolting, welding, etc., on M.S. Rounds, channels, joists, angles, plates, resulting into emergence of altogether different and distinct finished goods and are liable for central excise duty.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellants entered into the contract of Punjab State Electricity Board and undertook the activity of fabricating steel structures like columns, beams, etc. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellants manufactured structural of iron and steel classifiable under Heading 7508.90 of Central Excise Tariff and chargeable to duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Appellants filed appeal before CEGAT and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The impugned order is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE contention of the appellants is that the activity carried out by them does not amount to manufacture as they are cutting, welding, punching holes on duty paid angles, plates and channels. Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wainganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (50) RLT 177 where the Tribunal, after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 580, held that fabrication of trusses, columns and purlines, does not amount to manufacture. Revenue filed the appeal against the decision of the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as C.C.E. v. Wainganga Sahakari S. Karkhana Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) = 2002 (50) RLT 125]. Appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pawar Construction Co. v. CCE reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 367 to say that the process undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue vide order dated 29 -7 -2002 [2003 (151) E.L.T. A296 (S.C.)].