2017 (3) TMI 1131 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - supply of bought out items as parts of weigh bridge - The Revenue was of the view that inasmuch as all the parts and components of weigh bridge are being cleared by the appellant under the cover of one invoice, the same amounts to clearance of complete weigh bridge in SKD or CKD condition - Held that - the appellants are paying duty on the parts cleared by them and are doing erection and commissioning at the site of the buyer. Therefore, appellants are not liable to pay duty on complete weigh bridge - Further, we find that the issue whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on complete weigh bridge or parts thereof was in dispute and it was held in favour of the appellant for the earlier period. Therefore, for the subsequent period, in that circumstances, extended period of limitation is not invokable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand confirmation against the appellant for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08.
2. Excisability of weigh bridge parts and components.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
4. Dispute regarding clearance of complete weigh bridge.
5. Comparison with earlier Tribunal decisions.
6. Applicability of duty on complete weigh bridge or parts thereof.
7. Acceptance of Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 18.04.2011.
8. Liability to pay duty on complete weigh bridge.
9. Decision on merits and limitation.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 02/2009-10 dated 08.09.2009, confirming a demand of ?1,71,40,806 against the appellant for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 by invoking the longer period of limitation.

2. A dispute arose concerning the excisability of weigh bridge parts and components. The Revenue contended that clearing all parts under one invoice amounted to complete weigh bridge clearance in SKD or CKD condition, leading to demand recovery proceedings.

3. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was challenged by the appellant, arguing that various proceedings across Commissionerates were ongoing, making the facts known to the Revenue.

4. The appellant's assembly and erection of weigh bridges at customer sites led to proceedings initiated by Central Excise authorities at those locations. The Tribunal considered earlier decisions and rejected Revenue appeals, supporting the appellant's position.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 18.04.2011 favored the appellant, considering the specific nature of pit and pitless weigh bridges and relevant legal precedents, leading to the demand being set aside.

6. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and legal positions, held that the appellant was not liable to pay duty on the complete weigh bridge, as they were paying duty on parts and conducting erection and commissioning at buyer sites.

7. Given the earlier decision in favor of the appellant and the acceptance of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable for the subsequent period.

8. Consequently, the appeals succeeded on both merit and limitation grounds, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant as appropriate.