2005 (12) TMI 397 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on job work carried out for the expansion of Sugar Mill capacity.
2. Liability for Central Excise duty on goods manufactured for the expansion work.
3. Appellant's contention of discharging Central Excise duty for items manufactured in its factory and fabricated at site.
4. Appeal against the duty demand confirmation by the Commissioner.
5. Legal position regarding excisability of permanently fixed machinery.
6. Appellant's involvement in items fabricated at site by contractors.
7. Applicability of judgments in similar cases to the present situation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a duty demand on job work carried out by the appellant for expanding a Sugar Mill's capacity. The duty demand was based on the allegation of evasion of Central Excise duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.

2. The appellant contended that it had discharged Central Excise duty for items manufactured in its factory and that it was not liable for duty on items fabricated at the site by independent manufacturers. The total duty demanded was approximately Rs. 50 lakhs.

3. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the machinery installed in the Sugar Mill was not liable for duty as it became a permanent structure upon assembly and erection at the site.

4. The appellant referenced the judgment in Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise to support the non-excisability of permanently fixed machinery. Additionally, the appellant emphasized that it was not the manufacturer of items fabricated at the site by contractors.

5. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the machinery was moveable goods subject to excise duty and that the appellant was responsible for the fabrication carried out by contractors. The contract with the Sugar Mills specifically included duty in the contract value.

6. The Tribunal found that the Boiling House installed at the site was not moveable due to its size and assembly process. The duty demand on the plant as a whole was deemed unsustainable, especially since the appellant had already paid duty on parts manufactured in its factory.

7. Regarding items fabricated at the site by contractors, the Tribunal held that the job workers were the manufacturers, not the appellant. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.