2001 (9) TMI 605 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on fabrication of storage tanks.
2. Classification of storage tanks under CET Act.
3. Permanency and movability of storage tanks.
4. Marketability and dutiability of storage tanks.
5. Time bar for show cause notice.
6. Appeal based on previous judgments.

Issue 1: Duty demand on fabrication of storage tanks:
The appeal arose from an order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 60,54,054 for fabrication of storage tanks at the premises of a corporation. The appellant undertook various activities in fabricating the tanks using steel plates supplied by the corporation.

Issue 2: Classification of storage tanks under CET Act:
The dispute centered on whether the storage tanks fell under chapter sub-heading 7309.00 of the CET Act. The appellant argued that the tanks were not goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, citing various points to support their position.

Issue 3: Permanency and movability of storage tanks:
The Commissioner considered the tanks as goods based on their movability and the ability to dismantle and re-erect them at another location. However, the appellant contended that the tanks were permanently fixed and immovable, citing previous judgments and the nature of the tanks' construction.

Issue 4: Marketability and dutiability of storage tanks:
The appellant argued that marketability was essential for dutiability, and the burden to prove marketability lay with the department. They highlighted the tanks' construction and features to support their claim that the tanks were not excisable goods.

Issue 5: Time bar for show cause notice:
The appellant claimed that the show cause notice was time-barred and that all relevant information was disclosed to the Central Excise Department. They argued that the tanks were not goods under the Central Excise Act.

Issue 6: Appeal based on previous judgments:
The appellant relied on a previous judgment regarding the erection of storage tanks, arguing that the tanks became immovable property when attached to the earth. They sought a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery based on the interpretation of previous judgments by the Tribunal and the Apex Court.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner for further examination in light of the arguments presented by the appellant. The Commissioner was directed to verify the facts regarding the tanks' permanency, movability, and dutiability, providing an opportunity for the appellant to present evidence. The case was to be expedited for a just resolution.