COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE NAGPUR Vs. WAINGANGA SAHKARI S KARKHANA LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 18,2002
COMMISSIONER,CENTRAL EXCISE,NAGPUR
Appellant
VERSUS
WAINGANGA SAHKARI S.KARKHANA LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ARUNA INDUSTRIES,VISHAKRIAPATNAM V. C.C.E.,GUNTUR [REFERRED]RICHARDSON AND CRUDDAS (1972) VS. COLLECTOR OF C. EX. [REFERRED]
STRUCTURALS AND MACHINERIES PVT. VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
Commissioner of Income tax VS. Meenakshi Asphalts [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-49] [REFERRED TO]GANNON DUNKERLEY AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
MS ALUMAYER INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-MUMBAI-V [LAWS(BOM)-2011-12-174] [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(CE)-2005-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C EX., BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2006-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PATNA [LAWS(CE)-2003-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2002-12-126] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2002-12-143] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. AND VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-2-300] [REFERRED TO]
KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2002-11-192] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MECHANICAL WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
SUVIDHA ENGINEERS (INDIA) LTD. & VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2002-8-120] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISISONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD VS. USHA BRECO LIMITED CALCUTTA [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-42] [REGFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)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 vs. C.C.E., Guntur, (1986 (25) ELT 580). It did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1984 (17) ELT 127).
(2.)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.
(3.)In one of these subsequent judgments, in the case of Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1988 (38) ELT 176), the case of Aruna Industries (supra) has been considered and found to be applicable to a situation where the assessee was erecting the structures at the construction 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.
(2.)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.
(3.)In one of these subsequent judgments, in the case of Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1988 (38) ELT 176), the case of Aruna Industries (supra) has been considered and found to be applicable to a situation where the assessee was erecting the structures at the construction 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.