9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 123 - AT - Central ExcisePSC girders - Whether PSC girders manufactured at site by the appellants for the construction of bridge are marketable goods attracting Central Excise duty under tariff heading 6807 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and if so, whether they are exempt under Notification No. 59/90-C.E.- HELD THAT - The Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (1) TMI 128 - SUPREME COURT held that the object of the new definition of the expression tax on the sale or purchase of goods introduced in clause 29A of Article 366 was to enlarge the scope of the expression so that it may include within its scope the transfer, delivery or supply of goods that may take place under any of the transactions referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause 29A wherever such transfer, delivery or supply becomes subject to levy of sales tax. The Court held the expression includes a tax on the transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract also. In the light of this decision and having regard to the fact that period in dispute in the present case is subsequent to the 46th Amendment to the constitution, we apply the ratio of the above said decision to hold that, even though the contract between M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and the appellants in the present appeals was construction of bridges, excise duty is leviable on PSC girders involved in the execution of the works contract for construction of bridges as PSC girders, which are cast at the casting yard and then transported to the site of the project, are marketable. The reliance by the Bench in the case M/s. B.E. Billimoha Company Private Limited upon the upholding of the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Richardson and Cruddas Limited 1964 (7) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT by the Apex Court by dismissal of Revenue's appeal 1967 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT is misplaced for the reason that the Richardson and Cruddas' decision cover the period prior to the 46th Amendment and the Supreme Court's dismissal of appeal filed by the State of Madras against the Madras High Court's decision was prior to the 46th Amendment to the Constitution in 1982. We, therefore, answer the first issue referred to us in the affirmative. The benefit of Notification No. 59/90 is inter alia available to goods manufactured at the site of construction of buildings for use in such sites . It is not the case of the appellants that bridges are buildings. The word building has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990 edition) as a permanent fixed structure forming an enclosure and providing protection from the elements etc. (e.g. the house, school, factory, stable). This does not cover bridges in its ambit. Buildings and bridges are different from each other. Hence the benefit of Notification No. 59/90 cannot be extended to PSC girders, as they are goods, which are not manufactured at site for construction of buildings. We, therefore, answer the second issue referred to us in the negative. Both sides confirmed that no other issues remain for decision. Therefore, we uphold the impugned orders confirming demands, imposing penalties and confiscating the goods, and reject the appeals.
Issues:
1. Whether PSC girders manufactured at the site for the construction of a bridge are marketable goods attracting Central Excise duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. Whether the PSC girders are exempt under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. dated 20th March 1990, considering the distinction between buildings and bridges. Analysis: Issue 1: The Tribunal considered the marketability of PSC girders manufactured at the site for bridge construction. The Commissioner relied on previous judgments to establish that PSC girders are distinct goods with the capability of being transported and marketed. The Tribunal noted that the girders were cast in a yard, removed, and launched on piers, indicating their marketability. Despite the argument that girders are part of the bridge structure, the Tribunal held that they are marketable goods based on legal precedents. The decision of another case was distinguished based on the nature of the contract and the marketability of PSC girders. Issue 2: Regarding the exemption under Notification No. 59/90, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of "building" and concluded that bridges do not fall under this definition. As PSC girders are not manufactured at the site for building construction, the benefit of the notification cannot extend to them. Therefore, the Tribunal answered this issue negatively. Since no other issues were raised, the Tribunal upheld the orders confirming demands, penalties, and confiscation of goods based on the findings related to marketability and exemption. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the marketability of PSC girders for bridge construction, subjecting them to Central Excise duty. The exemption under Notification No. 59/90 was deemed inapplicable due to the distinction between buildings and bridges. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal interpretations and precedents, leading to the rejection of the appeals and upholding of the impugned orders.
|
