2004 (2) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assembly and fabrication of an electronic weigh bridge system at a specific site is chargeable to duty.
2. Whether an electronic weigh bridge system can be considered as goods capable of being brought to the market for sale.

Issue 1: Assembly and Fabrication of Electronic Weigh Bridge System:
The appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 48/2001 contested the dropping of the duty demand by the lower authorities concerning the assembly and fabrication of an electronic weigh bridge system at the site of M/s. HPCL bottling plant. The Revenue argued that the assembly of the weigh bridge system is chargeable to duty, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the electronic weigh bridge system cannot be considered as goods for sale in the market, referencing a previous Tribunal decision. Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had undertaken significant work in converting a mechanical weigh bridge into an electronic one, involving various processes like dismantling, modification, calibration, and fabrication. The Tribunal analyzed past legal precedents, including the purpose of attaching machinery to a base for operational efficiency and safety, and the requirement of marketability for goods to be liable to excise duty. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the electronic weigh bridge system, being firmly attached to the earth and not capable of being sold without damage, should be treated as immovable property and hence not excisable.

Issue 2: Marketability of Electronic Weigh Bridge System:
The crux of the second issue revolved around whether the electronic weigh bridge system could be deemed as goods capable of being brought to the market for sale. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents, emphasizing the importance of marketability in determining excisability. Notably, the Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's stance in a specific case, where it was established that goods must be new, identifiable products resulting from a manufacturing process and marketable to be subject to excise duty. In the case at hand, the Tribunal observed that the electronic weigh bridge system, due to its attachment to the earth and inability to be sold without damage, did not meet the criteria of being a marketable product in its existing form. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the electronic weigh bridge system should be considered as immovable property and not liable to excise duty.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Bangalore, in its judgment, thoroughly analyzed the issues surrounding the assembly and fabrication of an electronic weigh bridge system and its marketability for excise duty purposes. By considering the specific processes involved in the conversion of the weigh bridge, relevant legal precedents, and the concept of marketability, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, determining that the electronic weigh bridge system should be treated as immovable property and not subject to excise duty.