Executive Engineer, Fabrication Vs. Cce

Executive Engineer, Fabrication vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 06, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35863

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/35863
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: A T V.K., P Bajaj
Decided On: Jul 06, 2004
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Executive Engineer, Fabrication

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(116)LC676Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed the duty demand with penalty as detailed therein.2. the issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the activity of the appellants of producing transformed structure from the ms rods, ms channels, etc. amounts to manufacture. the adjudicating authority held this issue against the appellants and confirmed the duty demand for the disputed period ranging july 1996 to may 1997 through order-in-original which has been affirmed by the commissioner (appeals).3. the earned counsel has contended that the above referred issue already stands covered in favour of the appellants by the tribunal's final order no. e/204 & 205/91-d dated 8.4.1991 in the case of cce, madurai v. tamil nadu electricity board. therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. on the other hand, learned jdr has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. we have heard both the sides. the perusal of the record shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformed structural materials. these products are manufactured by them out of duty paid material by cutting, punching, etc., of angles, bars and similar fabrication angles/rods, etc. in an identical case, cce, madurai v.tamil nadu electricity board (supra) referred by the counsel, the tribunal has taken the view that such an activity did not amount to manufacture. in that case also, structural materials were prepared from the ms rods, ms channels, and mild steel flats. the case of the appellants squarely stands covered by the ratio of law down in that case and as such, no duty demand could be confirmed against them. that order of the tribunal has already attained finality. even the apex court has upheld that order by dismissing the appeal of the revenue as reported in 1996 (82) elt court room highlights a158.5. consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. the appeal of the appellants is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal by the appellants vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed the duty demand with penalty as detailed therein.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the activity of the appellants of producing transformed structure from the MS rods, MS channels, etc. amounts to manufacture. The adjudicating authority held this issue against the appellants and confirmed the duty demand for the disputed period ranging July 1996 to May 1997 through order-in-original which has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The earned Counsel has contended that the above referred issue already stands covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/204 & 205/91-D dated 8.4.1991 in the case of CCE, Madurai v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

4. We have heard both the sides. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformed structural materials. These products are manufactured by them out of duty paid material by cutting, punching, etc., of angles, bars and similar fabrication angles/rods, etc. In an identical case, CCE, Madurai v.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) referred by the Counsel, the Tribunal has taken the view that such an activity did not amount to manufacture. In that case also, structural materials were prepared from the MS rods, MS channels, and mild steel flats. The case of the appellants squarely stands covered by the ratio of law down in that case and as such, no duty demand could be confirmed against them. That order of the Tribunal has already attained finality. Even the Apex Court has upheld that order by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue as reported in 1996 (82) ELT Court Room Highlights A158.

5. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Executive Engineer, Fabrication vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A T V.K., P Bajaj