MUKAT PIPES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed by M/s. Mukat Pipes Ltd., the issue involved is whether steel structures namely columns, trusses, purrlins, etc. are chargeable to Central Excise duty.

(2.) SHRI K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture MS Pipes; that they had put up a building attached with a shed for their factory and work relating to shed was entrusted under a work contract to M/s. H.B. construction Co.; that the job work assigned under the contract was fabrication and erection of steel structures and allied work namely, built up columns, roof, supporters, roof sheeting, gantry etc.; that the Additional Commissioner under Order -in -original dated 13.11.2000 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that the steel structure fabricated by them are capable of being marketed nd are chargeable to Central Excise duty; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned order has rejected their appeal. He further, submitted that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of General Mechanical Works Vs. CCE Chandigarh I [2003 (56) RLT 250 CEGAT] that the process of bending,cutting, punching holes, bolting, welding etc. of MS round, channels, angles and plates to fabricate columns, trusses, beams etc. does to amount to manufacture; that as such when the process does not amount to manufacture, the question of the product being marketable does not arise. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Wainganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2002 (50) RLT 125 (SC)].

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri Kumar Santosh, learned S.D.R., submitted that the Appellants have fabricated steel structure such as columns, trussed, purrlins etc. which are products different from the raw material; that after fabrication, these goods have been removed for erection as permanent fixtures; that this fact goes to prove that products are capable of being brought to market for being brought and sold; that accordingly, Central Excise duty is leviable. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. (1972) ELT Vs. CCE [1988 (38) ELT 176 (Tri)] wherein it has been held that process of conversion of iron and steel products into columns, trusses, purrlins etc. amount to a process of manufacture since the resultant goods have distinct name, character and use different from the raw material.