2018 (8) TMI 403 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - whether assembling of different segment and components of CTC machine amounts to manufacture or otherwise? - Held that - CTC machine when installed at the buyers site by rooting it to ground, would be immovable property and thus become non-excisable - reliance was placed in the case of M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCEx. 2000 (8) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the installation of turbo alternator on the platform specially constructed on the land cannot be created as a common base, therefore, such alternator would be immovable property as such, it cannot be excisable goods falling within the meaning of heading 8502 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against impugned order setting aside demand raised by Show-cause notice.
2. Determining whether segments and electrical items are essential parts of CTC machine.
3. Whether CTC machine becomes immovable property when installed at buyer's site.
4. Whether assembling different segments and components of CTC machine amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order setting aside the demand raised by the Show-cause notice. The Revenue contended that the Adjudicating Authority erred in holding that segments and electrical items are not essential parts of the CTC machine. The Revenue argued that the essentiality of a part does not depend on whether it is manufactured by the assessee or bought from outside. The Revenue also disputed the classification of the CTC machine as immovable property when installed at the buyer's site.

2. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the premise that the segments and electrical items supplied by the assessee were essential for the CTC machine. However, the Revenue argued that the assessee admitted the essentiality of these components. The Revenue further contended that fixing the CTC machine to the ground does not make it immovable property, referencing relevant case laws to support their argument.

3. The main issue in this case was whether assembling different segments and components of the CTC machine amounts to manufacture. The Revenue argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider this aspect properly. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a previous order from the Appellate Commissioner to support their decision.

4. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had thoroughly considered the issue and followed relevant case laws in arriving at their decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining uniformity in decisions made by the Revenue and cited previous orders to support their conclusion.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments presented by the parties, the legal principles applied, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.