Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Karnataka Electricity Board vs Cce on 8 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(66)ECC389, 2001(134)ELT185(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. These two appeals arise from two separate orders-in-original. As the issue is common and the appellants being same, therefore they are taken-up for disposal as per law.
2. The issue that arises for consideration in Appeal No. E/1211/92-B is as to whether the following items processed in appellants workshop are goods and whether they are excisable :-
1. Top Fittings
2. Fish Plate
3. 2/3/4 Pin Cross Arms
4. H.T. Top Support
5. M.S. Racks
6. M.S. Flat Braces
7. E.C. Stirrups
8. Transformer Structure
3. Similarly, in Appeal No. E/2099/92B, the issue involved is as to whether the following items are goods and whether they are excisable :-
1. RCC Pole Clamps
2. PCC Pole Clamps
3. Clamp for T.C. sets 100 KVA-300 KVA
4. Grounding Pipe Station Type
5. Clamps for D.P. Sets
6. Anchor Rods/Special Anchor Rods
7. Horizontal Cross Arms
8. Single Top Support
4. Ld. Advocate for appellants points out that the issue is no longer res Integra and in their own case the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 2528/98, dated 4-12-1998 has following the judgment of the Vindhya Paper Mills as reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 298 held that mere cutting angles, other shapes and sections of steel into required sizes, drilling and punching holes, painting, welding etc. for construction of godowns, stores would not amount to process of manufacture. The above order has also referred earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of SAE (India) v. Collector reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 613 (T) and that of TANSI Engineering Works v. CCE as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 407 wherein similar view was expressed.
5. Ld. Advocate also files Final Order No. 323 to 325/99-B1, dated 18-3-1999 allowing the appeals on the same issue. Further, reference is also made to Order No. 1814/98, dated 10-9-1998 on the same issue allowing the appellants appeals.
6. Ld. Advocates points out that in E/1211/92-B, the appellants are paying duty in respect of M.S. Racks and the appellants would not like to contest on that issue and the duty on M.S. Racks has not been quantified. However, they would pay the duty on quantification. He further submits that the Tribunal again had reiterated the issue in the case of Elecon Engineering as reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337 and concluded the same view as expressed in the earlier orders that these items would not be goods and no duty is liable except M.S. Racks which the appellants do not wish to contest.
7. Heard ld. DR, Ms. Aruna Gupta who reiterates Revenue's view.
8. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice from the cited orders that the items except M.S. Racks are not goods and no duty is liable to be paid. The Tribunal has relooked into the issue in the case of Elecon Engg. supra and has again reiterated that these items would not bring into existence a new goods. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed except in respect of M.S. Racks in which there is no contest and Department can quantify the amounts and recover the same.