ORDER 1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. It has set up a plant at Pithampur wherein it manufactures scooters under brand name "KINETIC HONDA" falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. This activity is being pursued in collaboration with the Japanese Company M/s Honda Motor Company. The petitioner/Company for housing its new industrial Unit gave turnkey contract to M/s Gunnon Dunkerley & Co, Ltd. Bombay. This contractor, was provided with duty paid iron and steel products like sheets, angles, and channels for the purpose of construction of shed. The said contractor subjected such articles to the process of drilling cutting and welding. After this activity, these articles were placed in their respective position in the shed. The articles so used, were not liable to be classified as 'goods' within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944. The respondent No.2 (Collector) however, issued show ca use notice dated 22/23rd June 1987 to the petitioner and demanded duty as specified in the notice (Annexure A). Aggrieved, this petitioner has filed this writ petition. The respondents have filed the return in oppugnation. 3. I have heard both the sides. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 8.9.1994 passed by this Court in M.P. No. 779/89 M/s Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Union of India and ors. wherein similar show cause notice has been quashed. 5. The counsel for the respondents opposed the relief and attempted to support the aforesaid notice impugned in this writ petition. However, he was unable to point out anything new which may pursuade this Court to take a different view shall what was taken in the aforesaid case. 6. After considering the position of law and identical facts, the under noted order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition. "Accordingly, I hold that demand, proposed by show cause notices is unpropitious on facts and untenable in law. The activity, ex facie of fabrication cannot be branded as of process of manufacture of goods or products to put it under the umbrella of charging section. After all, law has to remain on talking terms with justice." 7. "Accordingly, I hold that demand, proposed by show cause notices is unpropitious on facts and untenable in law. The activity, ex facie of fabrication cannot be branded as of process of manufacture of goods or products to put it under the umbrella of charging section. After all, law has to remain on talking terms with justice." 7. In the result, I hold that demand as proposed in the aforesaid show cause notice (Annexure A) is untenable in law. The activity ex facie of fabrication, cannot be branded as of process of manufacture. The articles used in the construction of shed are thus not liable to be categorised as 'goods' and are thus not ex facie excisable. 8. In the circumstances, I quash the notice (Annexure A) as being invalid and illegal. The demand is, thus, without jurisdiction and deserves to be incinerated. 9. The petition is thus, allowed in terms indicated above with no order as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification.