2016 (11) TMI 1102 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - Marketability - fabrication of various articles of steels namely, trusses, purelines, beams and columns etc. at their site, using contractors - Held that - The items which go into the erection of the whole factory shed have been erected piece by piece out of duty paid steel plates/ angles/ channels etc. Further, if these are dismantled they will only turn into waste and scrap. Further such structural would not be capable of being subjected to the same use in a different location for a different customer. Since, during the process of dismantling these items considerable damage would be done to them. Further, these items are tailor made as per the requirement of the customer and therefore they can not be marketed as such. Hence, the items Trusses, Purelines, beams and columns are not excisable to duty. An essential question for levy of excise duty i.e. marketability is again answered in negative - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Liability to pay Central Excise duty on fabricated steel articles
- Interpretation of relevant case laws
- Marketability of fabricated items for excise duty

Analysis:
1. Liability to pay Central Excise duty on fabricated steel articles:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi arose from the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's order. The case involved the fabrication of steel articles like trusses, purelines, beams, and columns at the respondent's site using contractors during the factory setup. The Revenue contended that Central Excise duty was payable on these fabricated items, leading to proceedings to demand duty payment amounting to ?13,11,880. However, the Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal, prompting the Revenue to file a civil appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the original authority dropped the demand, which the Revenue challenged through the present appeal.

2. Interpretation of relevant case laws:
During the appeal hearing, the Revenue argued that the original authority erroneously relied on a Supreme Court decision in Elecon Engineering Co. and failed to consider other relevant judgments like Man Structurals and Mahendra and Mahendra Limited. The Revenue emphasized that structurals were excisable under a specific tariff entry, provided they were new identifiable goods resulting from manufacture and marketable. The Tribunal's decision in Mahendra and Mahendra Limited was highlighted as being more pertinent than the case laws relied upon by the original authority. The Tribunal considered these arguments along with the grounds of appeal and the impugned order.

3. Marketability of fabricated items for excise duty:
The original authority's observations played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision. The original authority noted that the fabricated items forming the factory shed, if dismantled, would become waste and scrap, incapable of being reused without substantial damage. Additionally, these items were tailor-made for specific customer requirements, rendering them non-marketable as standalone products. The Tribunal found no evidence or assertion challenging these findings, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision based on the lack of grounds to interfere with it.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, comprising Dr. Satish Chandra and Shri B. Ravichandran, dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the liability to pay Central Excise duty on fabricated steel articles, emphasizing the non-marketable nature of the items and upholding the original authority's decision. The Tribunal's detailed analysis considered the interpretation of relevant case laws and the specific characteristics of the fabricated items in question, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.