ORDER

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) ELT 580]. It did not follow another decision in the case of Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. 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 & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. 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 decis