G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. Out of the six appeals in hand, five appeals relate to classification of the goods and one appeal relates to the rejection of refund claims lodged by the appellants.

2. Factual backdrop: It is the case of the appellants that they accept on contract basis from the State Electricity Boards, in the country to install Electric Power Transmission Towers made of Steel for public distribution of Electric Power. For this purpose, they received from the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., and Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd., duty paid steel angles falling under Tariff Item 26AA of the C.F.T. in their factory , cut them to size, punched and galvanised them and cleared them from the factory, and after clearance from the factory these steel angles were used in the construction of steel Power Transmission Towers of the State Electricity Boards, Government Body's like National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. They submitted their five classification lists contending that since the steel angles had already paid duty under T.I. 26AA, and mere cutting, punching, and galvanising the cut-to-size angles did not amount to manufacture resulting into the emergence of a new product, they did not attract T.I 68. However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jabalpur rejected their plea and classified the said goods under T.I. 68 charging duty thereon prescribed under this heading vide his five separate Orders-in-original of various dates. It appears that the appellants also filed their seven refund claims totally amounting to Rs. 9,71,953 26, inter alia stating that for the reasons mentioned in the classification lists no central excise duty under T.I. 68 was attracted as they had already paid duty under T.I. 26AA, but due to mistake they had wrongly debited in PLA the duty on the said duty paid items. All the refund claims were taken up together and ultimately rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jabalpur vide his Order dated 25.5.1981 holding that duty was correctly payable on the said Items. Against the said six orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jabalpur, the appellants filed their six separate appeals before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, who vide his two Orders-in-Appeal (which are impugned herein) rejected all the said six appeals filed by the appellants. Hence the present appeals.

3. Shri Satyasheel, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in all the six appeals, issue involved is identical and stands decided in favour of the appellants by this Tribunal, as would appear from the decisions rendered in--(1) Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M/s. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. 1987 (11) ECR 692, (2) Arm Industries, Visakhapatnam v. Collector of Central Excise 1986 (8) ECR 166, (3) R.S. Steel Works, ghaziabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, Order No. 395/86-B1 dated 1.7.1986. In reply Shri J.N. Nigam, learned SDR for the respondent, while supporting the impugned orders submitted that the activities of the appellants such as cutting, punching, galvanising etc. of the steel angles amounts to manufacture and cited the following cases--Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise, Madras 1980 ELT 775 : (Madras) 1981 ECR 10D, (2) Structurals and Machineries v. Collector of Central Excise MANU/CE/0038/1984, (3) Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd, v. Union of India MANU/DE/0360/1987, Delhi.

4. We have considered the arguments and find that the issue involved in the instant appeals is fully covered by the series of decisions of this Tribunal. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M/s. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd., supra the following issue was involved (which is identical to the issue involved in the instant appeals):

(i) Whether the iron steel angles, plates, channels and rods supplied by the Gujarat Electricity Board which were cut into pieces, bent and punched according to the orders galv