2011 (3) TMI 733 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - For the purpose of manufacture of the pre-fabricated components, the appellants have been allotted the casting yard premises by M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and such components are manufactured in such yards wherefrom the same are transported to the site of the elevated viaducts or the segment of the tunnel being constructed by cut and cover method, as the case may be - Revenue contended that Merely because the product is consumed by only one firm namely M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited that would not change the situation - In view of Notification No. 01/2011-CE. (N.T.) dated 17-2-2011 u/s 11C, decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against excise duty on construction work and manufactured components for infrastructural projects; Seizure of products for non-payment of duty; Payment of interest and penalty; Dispute on marketability of products; Notification exempting duty on goods manufactured at the site of construction.

Analysis:
In the present case, the appellants were engaged in civil construction work for infrastructural projects and manufacturing components for such projects. The dispute arose when the appellants did not pay excise duty on the items manufactured, leading to show cause notices and orders for seizure of products by the department. The lower authorities confirmed the confiscation orders, directed payment of interest, and imposed penalties. The main issue in contention was the marketability of the products manufactured by the appellants.

The appellants argued that there was no evidence of marketability, the products were unique and location-specific, there was no direct sale to the contracting party, and payment was based on project completion volume rather than individual product sales. The appellants contended that the lower authorities failed to consider these points and misapplied the law on marketability. They relied on judicial pronouncements to support their stance.

On the other hand, the department argued that similar products were manufactured by multiple assesses and used in the project by the contracting party, establishing marketability. The department's position was supported by the fact that various assesses were challenging similar orders, indicating widespread production and consumption of the products in question.

However, a crucial development emerged during the proceedings in the form of a government notification exempting duty on goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work. This notification rendered the ongoing dispute obsolete and concluded the matter. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assesses were successful, leading to the quashing of duty demands, interest, penalties, and confiscation orders.

In light of the notification, the controversy was resolved, and the proceedings against the assesses were deemed infructuous. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.