2002 (1) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Liability for payment of duty on cranes manufactured
- Question of excisability of cranes
- Whether duty payable by appellants or job workers

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the liability for payment of duty on cranes manufactured by the appellants. The Commissioner held the appellants liable for payment of duty amounting to Rs. 1,59,14,980 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, interest and penalties were imposed on the appellants for contravention of excise laws. The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo consideration, leading to the impugned order by the Commissioner.

2. The crux of the case revolves around the excisability of the cranes manufactured by the appellants. The appellants argued that the cranes were not excisable goods based on the process of manufacturing and the nature of the product. They contended that the cranes were not brought to the market for sale, and the process of manufacturing involved step-by-step construction leading to an immovable property. Citing precedents and judgments, the appellants sought exemption from excise duty.

3. Another crucial issue raised was the determination of whether the duty was payable by the appellants or the job workers. The appellants argued that the job workers were responsible for the actual installation of the cranes, and hence, the duty should not be imposed on them. This argument was supported by the detailed manufacturing process presented by the appellants.

4. After considering the arguments and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal analyzed the excisability of the cranes. They applied a two-fold test: whether the cranes were brought to the market for sale and whether they were step-by-step manufactured and embedded to earth. The Tribunal concluded that since the cranes were not brought to the market for sale and were constructed in a manner that made them immovable property, they were not excisable goods. This decision was based on previous Tribunal decisions and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellants. The judgment provided for consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with the law. The decision was based on the interpretation of excisability criteria and the nature of the manufacturing process involved in creating the cranes, leading to the exemption from excise duty for the appellants.