The central legal point established in the judgment is that structural fabrication work that does not result in the creation of goods is not liable for excise duty.

The Order of the Court is as follows :-

W.P. No. 15240 of 1988 is for the issue of writ ofmandamusdirecting the respondents to forbear from levying duty of excise under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in respect of structural fabrication work carried out by the petitioner for Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited under Order No. MOD/FC/86, dated 3-1-1987 insofar the petitioner is concerned.

2.W.P. No. 15241 of 1988 is for the issue of writ of declaration that Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 isultra viresand unconstitutional offending Entry 84 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and void and unenforceable insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

3.W.P. No. 15242 of 1988 is for the issue of writ ofmandamusdirecting the respondents to forbear from levying duty of excise under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or in any manner invoking the provisions of the said Act including obtaining direction and following attendant formalities on the structural fabrication work carried out by the petitioner at the project site of India Cements Ltd., under letter of Intent No. GMT/D222/87/4724, dated 31st August, 1987 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

4.The points arising for decision in all the three writ petitions are the same.

5.According to the petitioners, who are structural engineering contractors doing structural work for various companies, took composite contracts for structural work from various organisations. These organisations provided the petitioners with requisite structural steel like angles, channels, sheets, etc. These materials had already suffered duty and they were subjected to processing by the petitioners like cutting, welding, jointing and the work was done at the site summarised by the concerned organisations. The entire work belong to factory and the entire work was done at the customers' premises. The petitioners had limited ingress and egress into the area of work limited to the job. The work done by the petitioners had always been regarded as not involving in manufacture much less creation of goods. The respondents or its officers or agents had on occasions sought to impose the duty on the work, but it had been held by successive authorities and adjudicating forums that the work did not involve manufacture of goods as known to the market and in fact the work fall short of being styled as manufacture. The various authorities and tribunals had held that the work did not involve creation of goods, and therefore, there was no duty payable. The decisions by the authorities had been accepted by the respondents as they had not been challenged by them.

6.After the coming into force of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, schedule to the Central [Excises] and Salt Act, 1944, was deleted and the goods were independently classified by a separate Act. Subsequent thereto, revenue started taking a stand that the work carried out by the petitioners were appropriately covered under Heading 7308 of Chapter 73 of the Tariff Act. The Superintendent of Central Excise had also clarified that the structurals were not goods and did not attract excise duty. After such finding, the petitioners discontinued the excise formalities. However, the authorities had started taking a view that the petitioners were liable under Heading 7308.90 for the steel structurals and under Heading 9406.00 for alleged fabricated building. The petitioners had not manufactured any pre-fabricated building, but were doing only structural fabrication work, who were progressively erected at site. In fact, any instance of duty on the structural fabrication work will be far higher than the fabrication charges received by the petitioners.

7.As already stated, the work as carried out by the petitioners did not result in creation of work, but const