9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 247 - HC - Central ExciseExcisability of Signages which are erected at various petrol bunks of IOC - Circular No.58/1/02-CX dated 15.1.2002 - Whether Tribunal in 2009 (4) TMI 258 - CESTAT, CHENNAI was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner treating the signages as movable property contrary to the clarification issued by the Board - Held that - findings of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are that the signages are capable of movable and are installed by fixing it on a concrete foundation and can be detached and shifted to another location without damaging them. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court 2006 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA stands distinguished in the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, we find that the finding of fact by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal cannot be an issue for consideration in appeal. - first question of law is a question of fact and on the second question of law whether the Board s Circular is binding - general proposition is given with regard to immovable final products. In the present case, both the Authorities have come to the conclusion that the final product is not immovable. Therefore the circular is of no avail to the appellant. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the signages erected at petrol stations are movable goods liable to excise duty. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in treating the signages as movable property contrary to the Board's clarification. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the signages erected at petrol stations are movable goods liable to excise duty. The appellant contended that they only fabricated sign poles at their premises, while other components like fiberglass sheets and electrical panels were manufactured by third parties and assembled at various IOC sites, making the final product immovable and not subject to excise duty. They relied on the Board's Circular No.58/1/02-CX and several judicial decisions to support their claim that the signages, once erected, became immovable property. The Department argued that the appellant manufactured and assembled complete signages at their premises, which were inspected and certified by RITES before being dismantled for transportation to various IOC sites. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including statements from RITES and IOC officials, and documents like delivery memos and erection reports, concluding that the signages were fully assembled at the appellant's factory before being transported and reassembled at the sites. The Tribunal held that the signages were movable goods and fell under CSH 9405.90, thus liable to excise duty. The Tribunal distinguished the appellant's case from other judicial precedents by noting that the signages could be detached and shifted without damage, unlike fixtures that become immovable upon installation. Issue 2: Whether the Tribunal was correct in treating the signages as movable property contrary to the Board's clarification. The appellant cited the Board's Circular No.58/1/2002-CX, which states that immovable final products, even in CKD or unassembled form, are not dutiable as a whole. However, the Tribunal found that the signages were not immovable, as evidenced by their capability to be detached and relocated without damage. Consequently, the circular was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal confirmed the Adjudicating Authority's findings that the signages were movable and thus excisable. It rejected the appellant's argument that only sign poles were manufactured at their premises, and the remaining parts were assembled at the sites. The Tribunal upheld the demand for excise duty, penalties, and interest, while reducing the penalty on the Managing Director and setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the signages were movable and subject to excise duty. The appellant's reliance on the Board's circular and judicial precedents was found inapplicable due to the specific facts of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was confirmed.
|
