2008 (8) TMI 666 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - Dutiability - Demand - Limitation - Extended period

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner, Excisability of Items, Time Barred Demands

Jurisdiction Issue Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore to adjudicate a case related to offshore/onshore drilling activities conducted beyond the shores of Mumbai. The appellant argued that the activities carried out by them fell within the territorial limits of Mumbai Commissionerate and, therefore, Bangalore Commissionerate lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the factory would be limited to the approved plant under the Factories Act and approved by the Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Bangalore cannot extend the definition of "factory" to include places outside the factory's jurisdiction. Thus, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the jurisdiction issue.

Excisability of Items Analysis:
The second issue revolved around the excisability of items assembled for erecting onshore/offshore radar stations. The revenue alleged that the items constituted goods that arose on the spot and duty had not been paid on them. The appellant contended that the assembled items were immovable property, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the items removed from the factory had already suffered duty, and what came into existence on the deep-sea shore was a platform where radar equipment was fixed, akin to immovable property. The Tribunal found that the items could not be considered as goods for excisability purposes once dismantled. Therefore, the Tribunal sided with the appellant on the excisability issue.

Time Barred Demands Analysis:
Regarding the time-barred demands, the appellants argued that the demands were beyond the normal period of limitation and pleaded a bona fide belief that the assembled items constituted immovable property. The Tribunal accepted this argument, emphasizing that the items in question were indeed immovable property, and the belief held by the appellants was supported by Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on the time-barred demands issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on all three pleas raised, including jurisdiction, excisability, and time-barred demands, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.