2006 (6) TMI 369 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant manufactured Tetrapods and Cement Concret Armoured Units (CCAU) and cleared them to M/s Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) without payment of Central Excise duty.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation is applicable for demanding duty.
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 5/99-CE.
4. Whether the impugned goods were manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at the site.
5. Whether there is justification for the imposition of penalty and interest.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Civil, Structural, and Marine Contractor, was accused of manufacturing Tetrapods and CCAU without paying Central Excise duty when cleared to VPT. The Adjudicating Authority demanded duty and imposed penalties. The appellant challenged these findings, arguing that previous orders established he was not the actual manufacturer, and the extended period of limitation did not apply. The appellant also claimed entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 5/99-CE, citing previous judicial decisions and interpretations of the term "site."

2. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and noted that previous decisions had determined the appellant was a work contractor, not a manufacturer. The Department's attempt to invoke a longer period for demanding duty in 2002 was deemed unjustified, as the period involved was time-barred. Even if the appellant was considered a manufacturer, he would be entitled to exemption under relevant notifications for goods manufactured at the construction site. Judicial precedents and a liberal interpretation of the term "site" supported the conclusion that the impugned goods were indeed manufactured at the site. Consequently, the demand for duty was set aside, and no penalty or interest was deemed necessary.

3. The judgment emphasized that the impugned order lacked merit, and there was no basis for penalty or interest. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The decision was pronounced in the open court upon completion of the hearing.