S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

1. The appellants have filed the above two captioned appeals under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), challenging the validity and correctness of the Orders-in-appeal No. HN 994/B III - 432/86, dated 3-4-1987 and No. HN-1003/B III - 435/86 (File No. V-2(68) 95/35, dated 3-4-1987 respectively, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. As the question of law and points for determination are the same, except for difference in period, both the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order :-

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to these appeals are that the appellants are structural engineers engaged in the process of fabrication of the structures. They take job work from customers and mainly of M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineering Limited, who supply the raw materials to them. They carry on fabrication work of cutting and bending the raw materials supplied by their customers and the same are returned to them as semi-finished structures. There is no manufacture and semi-finished structures are not goods. On this question of whether the job activity undertaken by them pertaining to M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders is a manufacture or not is still pending consideration before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector had raised four demands in respect of the job work carried on by the appellants for various periods. The Assistant Collector had passed four orders-in-original, which were appealed against before the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, who had remanded all the matters for fresh disposal as per law to the Assistant Collector. Aggrieved by the said order, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay had preferred appeal before this Tribunal against only one order in Appeal (No. 651/87), which came up for hearing along with these appeals. The said appeal No. 651/87 was dismissed by this Tribunal so as to enable the Assistant Collector to consider the same along with the other three remanded appeals. The Assistant Collector has to verify the contentions of the appellant as to whether the job work of M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers is a manufacture or not and in the event of it being held in appellants' favour then to give deductions and the value of such work not to be taken for computing the eligibility of exemption and ceiling limit of Rs. 30 lakhs. The appellants will be entitled for refund on the question being answered in this appeal - pertaining to protest.

3. In appeal No. 1829/87, the appellants are challenging the validity and correctness of the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay insofar as rejecting the appellants' prayer for refund of duty paid during the period 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 amounting to Rs. 1,53,906.30. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants should have enjoyed the exemption benefit for the value of first 30 lakhs during the financial year 1982-83 as their classification list No. 1/82, dated 1-4-1982 was approved with exemption and the same was communicated to them by the Superintendent of Central Excise vide his letter dated 11-5-1982. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had also rejected the refund claim, as the appellants had failed to file the refund claim with his office before the expiry of six months as provided under Section 11B of the Act and also on the ground that the appellants had failed to file the letter of protest properly in terms of provisions contained in Rule 233B of the Act. The Collector (Appeals), Bombay upheld the orders-in-original by the Assistant Collector. Aggrieved, the above captioned Appeal 1829/87-D is filed.

4. Appeal No. 1828/87-D is against the rejection of their appeal by Collector (Appeals), Bombay for refund claim of the duty paid from 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 amounting to Rs. 2,19,009.18. In this case, the appellants had sought for benefit of exemption from payment