2006 (6) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order upholding order-in-original regarding Central Excise duty liability for water treatment plant assembly.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the order-in-original regarding the liability of Central Excise duty for a water treatment plant assembly. The appellant requested a decision on merits based on the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and referenced decisions. The dispute arose from the purchase of a water treatment plant without manufacturer details or duty payment particulars. The Revenue contended that the appellant assembled the plant, making them the actual manufacturers liable for Central Excise duty.

The authorities found that the appellant purchased components from the local market, assembled, and commissioned the plant without reflecting these activities in Central Excise records. The Commissioner (Appeals) invoked the extended period due to suppressed facts. Referring to Trade Notice No. 23/1998, it was established that plant and machinery assembled at the site attracted Central Excise duty. The plant's erection was deemed on 1-8-1995, justifying the show cause notice within the five-year limitation under Section 11A of the Act.

The appellant argued against suppression charges, claiming they did not manufacture but purchased the goods. However, the appellant's assembly of various plant components constituted a manufacturing process, creating the marketable commodity. The contention that the extended period couldn't be invoked was dismissed as the appellant suppressed purchasing and assembly facts.

The Tribunal clarified that assembling components into a marketable commodity, like the water treatment plant, constituted excisable goods. The plant's subsequent fixation on a foundation did not alter its excisable goods classification. Citing legal precedents, including Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, it was established that goods fixed for operational efficiency remained movable excisable goods.

Based on the factual findings and legal principles, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, rejecting the appellant's reliance on previous decisions. The plant, initially movable, retained its excisable goods status despite being fixed on a foundation for operational purposes. The appeal was therefore dismissed.