Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. WAINGANGA SAHKARI S. KARKHANA LTD.

Citation
2002 INSC 212
Decided
18 April 2002
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

Making trusses, columns and purlines at the site constitutes manufacture under the Central Excise law.

Summary

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which held that the making of trusses, columns and purlines by the assessee constituted manufacture. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Aruna Industries v. CCE Guntur, applying it to the facts that the fabrication was carried out at the construction site. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal’s view conflicted with earlier judgments, particularly the Structurals and Machineries case. The Court observed that the facts matched the scenario in Aruna Industries and that subsequent authority in Richardson and Cruddas affirmed that on‑site fabrication is deemed manufacture. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the making of trusses, columns and purlines by the assessee amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of the Central Excise Act.
  • Whether the Tribunal erred in not following the decision in Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise.

Subjects

Central Excisemanufacturefabricationtrussescolumnspurlinesexcise tribunalappellate court

Judgment

A               COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

                                 v.



B
               MIS. WAINGANGA SAHKARI S. KARK.HANA LTD.

                                APRIL I 8, 2002
                                                                                      .-
                [S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND
                           SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]


            Excise Laws:
c
         Trusses, Columns and purlines-Making of-Whether amounts to
   manufacture-Held, Tribunql noted that it had been found as a fact by the
   Collector that assessee had undertaken fabrication work at site-Decision of
  Aruna Industries case applied to instant case-Tribunal's order cannot be
D faulted
         Aruna Industries Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E. Guntur, (1986) 25 ELT
    580, relied on.

          Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd v. Collector of Central
E   Excise, (1984) (17) ELT_ 127 and Richardson and Cruddas, (1972) Ltd. v.
    Collector of Central Excise, (1988) 38 ELT 176, referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 496 of
    1998.

F        From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.97 of the Customs Excise and
    Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E/739/89-BL in
    F.O. No. E/866/97-B.

         Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solictior General, Jaideep Gupta and B.K.
    Prasad for the Appellant.
G
         V. Lakshmikumaran, M.P. Devnath and V. Balachandran for the
    Respondent.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered                           -
H                                      224
._,         COMMR. CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR 1'. WAIN GANGA SAHKARI S. KARKHANA LTD.     225

                 The Tribunal was concerned with whether making trusses, columns and          A
           purlines amounted to manufacture. The Tribunal followed an earlier decision
           in the case of Aruna Industries, Vishakhapatnam v. C.C.E., Guntur {1986) 25
           EL T 580. It did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and
           Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. ltd v. Collector a/Central Excise. (1984) 17
           ELT 127.
                                                                                              B
                  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 a/Central Excise, (1988] 38 ELT 176, the           C
           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           D
           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.
                                                                                              E
           R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Central Excise"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.