JUDGMENT
Wadhana Wadhwa
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common Order. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of today’s notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. Accordingly, we have heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned Order.
2. A short point involved in the present appeals is as regards the excisability and dutiability of structurals which have been held to be classifiable under heading 7308.90, according to the impugned Orders. As per the facts on records in both the appeals, the appellants are engaged in construction of Buildings, Factory Sheds etc. The fabrication of the various materials has been held by the adjudicating authorities as resulting in emergence of structurals whereas the appellant’s contention is that such activities undertaken by them did not result in the production of any marketable and hence excisable commodity. They have also contended before the adjudicating authorities that it was, if at all, the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant with whom they have entered into a contract, who was to be considered manufacturer.
3. After having gone through the impugned Orders, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Man Structural Ltd. reported in 2001 (44) RLT-113 (SC) has held that the excisability of the structurals have to be decided in the light of the fact that whether they are new identifiable goods that are the result of manufacture and that they are marketable. To the same effect, are the other decisions reported in 2001 (44) ELT R-7. We note that by following the said decisions, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur v. SAI India Ltd. reported in 2001 (45) RLT-873 (CEGAT-Delhi) has remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for deciding the matters afresh in the light of the directions as contained in the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. As such, following the ratio of the decision, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the matters to the original adjudicating authorities for fresh decisions in the light of the observations so made. Inasmuch as the matters are remanded on merits, the adjudicating authorities will also deal with the appellant’s contentions of the demands being time-barred. The appellants’ plea of fabrication work having been got done by sub-contractors and as such sub-contractors being manufactures, would also be considered by the adjudicating authorities during the remand adjudications. As such, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
Dictated in the open court.