2012 (11) TMI 1014 - AT - Central Excise

Denail of benefit of Notification No. 61/90 dated 20.3.1990 - Whether the benefit of Notification No. 61/90 are available to the appellants or not - Held that - adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification on the ground that the fabrication work was not done at the spot and the BBSs are fabricated at place nearby the Creek at which the bridge is to be built provided by the State Government. As there was no place at the site and this situation was visualized by Board and the Board issued a Circular dated 18.5.1999 whereby the Board has clarified that the expression site may not be given a restrictive meaning and shall include any premises made available to the manufacturer goods falling under sub-heading No. 7308.50. Tribunal in the case of Ranjit Sagar Dam (2006 (1) TMI 356 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-CE in respect of pre-mix concrete where the pre-mix was manufactured away from the site of Dam and transported to the Dam. The Tribunal allowed the benefit of Notification which provided nil rate of duty to pre-mix concrete manufactured at site. The Revenue filed appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the same was dismissed. In the present case also, we find that as there was no place of fabricating the BBSs at site as the bridge is to built on a creek and the same has been fabricated at the nearby site. Therefore, the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal is applicable to the facts of the present case - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 61/90 dated 20.3.1990 as amended to the appellants for the fabrication of Bridge Builder Systems (BBS).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of benefit of Notification No. 61/90
The appellants challenged the impugned order where the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 61/90 for the fabrication of BBS. The adjudicating authority classified the BBS under Chapter 7308.90 and charged duty at 15% ad valorem, stating that the BBS were not fabricated at the site of work for use in construction work at such site. The appellants argued that due to the nature of the construction site (Thane Creek Bridge), there was no place at the creek for fabrication, so they fabricated the BBS at a nearby place allocated by the State of Maharashtra. They relied on a Board's Circular and a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their claim that the denial of the notification's benefit was unjustified.

Analysis: The key issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "site" in Notification No. 61/90. The appellants contended that the BBS were fabricated at a nearby place due to the unique nature of the construction site, and therefore, they should be entitled to the notification's benefit. The Revenue, however, argued that the wording of the notification should be strictly followed, and since the goods were not fabricated at the exact site of construction, the benefit was rightly denied. The Tribunal considered the Board's Circular and a previous Tribunal decision related to pre-mix concrete fabrication away from the site of construction, where the benefit of a similar notification was allowed. Applying the principles from the previous decision, the Tribunal found that the denial of the benefit in this case was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and granting the appellants consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision regarding the benefit of Notification No. 61/90 to the appellants for the fabrication of Bridge Builder Systems.