Jyoti Balasundaram, Member

1. The dispute that arises in these appeals is whether the process of straightening, cutting bending and galvanising duty paid steel angles and channels amounts to manufacture so as to attract Central Excise duty. As both the appeals involve common issue they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

A. No. 3870/90/B1

2. The assessees are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 26, 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. According to the Department activities of galvanising and drilling of steel beams/joists on railway electrification account so as to make the products suitable for use in the installation amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and is classifiable under heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly "notice to show cause dated 19.4.1989 was issued to the appellants proposing to classify the items under heading 73.08. The adjudicating authority upheld the proposed classification. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the Order of the Assistant Collector by the Order dated 28.8.1990 and aggrieved by this Order the appellants have preferred the above appeal.

A. No. E/3657/90 B1

3. In this case the appellants were served with Show Cause Notice dated 30.6.1988 proposing the levy of duty of Rs. 986933.10 on manufacture and clearance of transmission towers during the period from 1.1.1988 to 17.3.1988. The contention of the appellants that the process of straightening, cutting, punching etc on angle rods and plates do not result in emergence of any new product was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority who held that structures and parts of structures for fabrication of transmission line towers are excisable under sub heading 7308.90. The Assistant Collector therefore confirmed the Show Cause Notice which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned Order. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard Shri Willingdon, learned Counsel and Shri S.K. Sharma, learned DR and carefully considered their submissions.

5. The learned Counsel contended that the process undertaken by the appellant do not bring into existence any new commercial commodity so as to attract levy under Section 3 of Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. The activities undertaken by the appellants cannot constitute manufacture and in support of this contention he cited the following decisions:-

(1) Pratap Steel Rolling Mills v. C.C.E. 1990 (27) ECR 364

(2) S.A.E. (India) Ltd v. C.C.E. 1988 (17) ECR 511

(3) Dodsal Mfg MANU/CE/0052/1987

6. The learned DR contended that after processing the disputed items are identifiable as structures of transmission towers and they are internationally recognised as mentioned in the C.C.C.N and also specifically covered by Chapter 73 C.E.T. Act. He submitted that after application of the processes, the raw materials acquire such a shape and character that they are capable of being readily fitted into structures and the products are commonly known as structural and therefore such an activity must be held to be manufacture, in terms of the Order of the Tribunal in the case of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd v. C.C.E. MANU/CE/0256/1988

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The point at issue has already been settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the appellants' own case cited above, in which an identical issue was involved namely whether the iron & Steel angles, plates, channels and rods supplied by the Gujarat Electricity Board which were cut into pieces, bent & punched according to the orders, galvanised & returned to the supplier and the erection of the transmission tower would be liable to duty under Item 68 C.E.T. The tribunal held that there was no manufacture of excisable goods. Further, in the case of Pratap Steel Rolling Mills v. C.C.E. Indore reported in 1990 (27) E.C.R. 364, the Tribunal has affirmed the view that erection of sheds on a vacant plot with the help of steel structures such