Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 25]

Supreme Court of India

Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur vs Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd on 18 April, 2002

Equivalent citations: AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2095, 2002 (5) SCC 415, 2002 AIR SCW 2155, (2002) 4 JT 483 (SC), 2002 (4) JT 483, 2002 (4) SLT 73, 2002 (4) SCALE 269, 2002 (6) SRJ 57, (2002) 142 ELT 12, (2002) 102 ECR 529, (2002) 127 STC 12, (2002) 4 SUPREME 392, (2002) 4 SCALE 269

Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, Shivaraj V. Patil

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  496 of 1998

PETITIONER:
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

RESPONDENT:
WAINGANGA SAHKARI S. KARKHANA LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/2002

BENCH:
S.P. BHARUCHA CJ.&  N. SANTOSH HEGDE & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT 2002 (3) SCR 224 The following Order of the Court was delivered The Tribunal was concerned with whether making trusses, columns and purlines amounted to manufacture. The Tribunal followed an earlier decision in the case of Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur (1986) 25 ELT 580. It did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. (1984) 17 ELT 127.

It is submitted on behalf of the Revenue that there are conflicting views taken by the Tribunal and that such conflicting views have been taken even after the impugned order.

In one of these subsequent judgments, in the case of Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1988] 38 ELT 176, the case of Aruna Industries (supra) has been considered and found to be applicable to a situations where the assessee was erecting the structures at the constructions site and fabricating materials on the spot; it was therefore found that this could not be considered to be fabrication in a factory. Now, in the instant case, the Tribunal noted that it had been found as a fact by the Collector that the assessee had undertaken fabrication work at site. This was a case, therefore, to which the decision of Aruna Industries (supra) applied and the Tribunal's order cannot be faulted.

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.