Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR versus M/S. WAINGANGA SAHKARI S. KARKHANA LTD.
- Decided
- 18 April 2002
- Judges listed
- S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2002] 3 S.C.R. 224 · 2002 INSC 212
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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 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.
p. 225, margin A
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.
p. 225, margin B
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 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.
p. 225, margin B
The appeal is dismissed.. No order as to costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 225, margin D