LAWS(CE)-2004-2-279

RICHARDSON AND CRUDDAS (1972) Vs. CCE

Decided On February 13, 2004
Richardson And Cruddas (1972) Appellant
V/S
CCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides.

(2.) The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the Tribunal. The Revenue filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal by following the observation in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs Man Structurals Limited, 2002 -TAXINDIAONLINE -182 -SC -CX, under : "It was for the Tribunal to determine, as a fact, whether the structural that the Department sought to make exigible to excise duty in the various appeals before it were new, identifiable goods which were produced as a result of manufacture or processes and which were marketable. Depending upon its conclusion on these aspects in each of the appeals before it, it was for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the goods in guest ion in each of these appeals were exigible to excise duty. In the judgment and order of the Tribunal that is under challenge the Tribunal has failed to consider the facts of even a single of the appeals before it. It has proceeded simply upon the basis that structurals are not exigible to excise duty. It has failed to appreciate that there is a tariff entry which makes structurals exigible to excise duty and that they are so exigible, provided that they are new identifiable goods that are the result of manufacture or processes and they are marketable."

(3.) In This case, the appellants are engaged in the process of fabrication such as cutting, welding, bolting, riveting, bending, etc. and others structural items. The contention of the Revenue is that the activity undertaken by the appellant's amounts to manufacture and the goods in question are excisable. The contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal vide final order No. 983 -84/03 -B dated 29.12.03 in the appellants' own case after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Wainganga Shakari S. Karkhana Limited, held that the fabrication of trusses, columns and purlines does not amount to manufacture.