2004 (8) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Duty demand on manufactured barge "AF-BP-ROSE," marketability of the barge, liability to pay duty, determination of the manufacturer, penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the duty demand of Rs. 2,62,336.95 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the appellants for manufacturing a barge named "AF-BP-ROSE." The appellants were awarded a contract for the design and construction of a railway bridge, for which they ordered a special barge from M/s. Sadanand Engineers.

2. The Tribunal found that the barge in question was considered "goods" for the purpose of excise duty levy, even though it was specially designed for a specific customer. The Tribunal had previously ruled in another case that the appellants were not the manufacturers of a similar barge fabricated by another job worker, M/s. Bright Engineers. Therefore, the question of who is liable to pay the duty remained unresolved.

3. Despite upholding the duty liability on the barge, the Tribunal noted that the issue of determining the manufacturer was not addressed in the impugned order. As the issue was not raised in the current appeal, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on the manufacturer of the barge and for a fresh consideration of the penalty aspect.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Commissioner to determine the manufacturer of the barge and decide from whom the duty can be demanded. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this crucial aspect, along with a reassessment of the penalty. The appeal was disposed of with these directions for the Commissioner to resolve the outstanding issues.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the duty demand, marketability of the barge, liability determination, manufacturer identification, and penalty imposition, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.