2004 (3) TMI 68 - SC - Central Excise

Demand - Limitation - Suppression of fact - Duty liability - Generating set - Immovable property - Valuation (Central Excise)

Summary

Issues:
- Extended period of limitation for duty demand
- Liability for payment of duty
- Classification of generating sets as immovable property
- Allegation of discrimination

Extended period of limitation for duty demand:
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of wilful suppression and the department's awareness of the generators' installation. They relied on a Trade Notice clarifying duty exemption for certain types of generating sets. Citing legal precedents, they contended that doubt regarding dutiability negates the need for the extended limitation period. However, both the Collector and the Tribunal found wilful suppression in the case, supported by the fact that the department only discovered the manufacture during an inspection. The subsequent Trade Notices left no doubt about dutiability, necessitating the appellant's disclosure. The court agreed with the findings, upholding the availability of the extended limitation period.

Liability for payment of duty:
The appellant claimed that if any duty was payable for the manufacture, it was the supplier, not them, who should be liable. They cited a Tribunal decision supporting this argument. However, based on inspection of invoices, the Collector concluded that the appellant had purchased components only, not the entire assembly service from the supplier. This factual finding, confirmed by the Tribunal, was deemed valid, and no interference was warranted.

Classification of generating sets as immovable property:
The appellant contended that the generating sets were immovable property, thus exempt from excise duty. However, the court disagreed, noting that the sets were bolted on a frame, making them capable of being unbolted, shifted, and sold. Consequently, the court rejected the argument that the sets qualified as immovable property.

Allegation of discrimination:
The appellant alleged discrimination, claiming that they were singled out for duty payment while other mills in the region were not paying. Citing legal precedents against discrimination, the appellant failed to provide specific details or evidence of discriminatory treatment. The court highlighted the lack of particulars or proof, noting that a general statement of non-payment by others was insufficient to establish discrimination. Additionally, the court pointed out that the department had issued a show cause notice to another party for a similar matter, indicating lack of discrimination.

In conclusion, the court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment, dismissing the appeal without costs.