S.S. Kang, J. - (1.)When the matter was called, the learned counsel for the appellants i.e. M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited filed a written request for adjournment. As the duty is demanded from Shri Kewal Singh, the other appellant, and the penalty is imposed on M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited, therefore, we are proceeding with the appeals after rejecting the request for adjournment. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Kewal Singh and learned SDR.
(2.)The appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order whereby it is held that the fabrication of structures such as columns, purlins and trusses amount to manufacture and the duty was confirmed on Shri Kewal Singh and the penalty was imposed on M/s, Jai Parabolic Springs Limited and the Tribunal allowed the appeals. Thereafter the Revenue filed the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh after going into the evidence whether the activity undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture and the goods manufactured by them are as such.
(3.)The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that they were only fabricating steel structures by cutting raw materials into required sizes, punching holes, bending, heating, welding, rivetting, etc. and thereafter these processes the steel structures were taken to civil work and put in a position and fixed by means of bolts and nuts. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Limited v. CCE, Kanpur vide Final Order No. 983 -984/2003 -B dated 29.12.2003 and in the case of General Mechanical Works v. CCB, Chandigarh -I, 2003 (56) RLT 250 (CEGAT -Del) and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (90) ECC 293 (Bom.) : 2003 (59) RLT 1 (Bom.) to submit that the activity undertaken by the appellants by fabrication of structural items does not amount to manufacture.