2005 (7) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Demand of duty on parts supplied directly to site and erection and commissioning charges.
2. Denial of credit on motors used in repair of boilers.
3. Penal action proposal.

Issue 1: Demand of duty on parts supplied directly to site and erection and commissioning charges:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the case of an assessee manufacturing boilers and parts, where duty was demanded on parts supplied directly to site and on erection and commissioning charges. The duty demands were confirmed by the CCE (Appeals) without evidence that boilers had become immovable property. The Tribunal held that the demand of duty on boilers outside the jurisdiction of the assessee's factory premises could not be upheld. The Additional Commissioner exceeded the notice scope by including erection and commissioning charges. The Tribunal set aside the duty demands and penalty.

Issue 2: Denial of credit on motors used in repair of boilers:
The denial of credit on motors used in the repair of boilers was also a subject of contention. However, the judgment primarily focused on the duty demands related to parts supplied directly to the site and erection and commissioning charges, and the subsequent penalty imposed.

Issue 3: Penal action proposal:
Regarding the penal action proposal, the Tribunal concluded that in light of the findings on the duty demands, the penalty could not be sustained. The order impugned was set aside, and the appeal was allowed concerning the valuation of boilers and the penalty only. Consequently, the duty demands were not upheld, leading to the dismissal of the penalty.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issues of duty demands on parts supplied directly to site and erection and commissioning charges, denial of credit on motors used in boiler repair, and a penal action proposal. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the duty demands and penalty due to lack of evidence supporting the duty claims and exceeding the notice scope.