2002 (1) TMI 115 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - Fabricated structurals - Demand - Limitation - Valuation (Central Excise) - Modvat

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellants, the demand of duty on fabricated steel structures, the question of excisability of the structurals, the contention regarding the extended period of limitation, and the consideration of Modvat credit and abatement of duty.

Jurisdictional Objection:
The appellants raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) by the Additional Collector instead of the Collector himself. The objection was based on the definition of 'Collector' under Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal rejected this objection as barred by estoppel, emphasizing that it should have been raised at the earliest opportunity.

Demand of Duty on Fabricated Steel Structures:
The show cause notice proposed to recover duty on fabricated steel structures allegedly manufactured at the site without complying with Central Excise requirements. The appellants contested this demand, arguing that the fabrication of the structures did not amount to manufacture as they were permanently attached to the earth and not marketable goods. They also contended that the demand was time-barred and not supported by evidence.

Excisability of the Structurals:
The duty was demanded on structural parts like trusses and purlins fabricated by the appellants at the site. The Department argued that the fabrication process yielded marketable goods different from raw materials, constituting manufacture. The Tribunal found that the fabricated structurals were commercially distinct goods emerging from the fabrication activity, which amounted to 'manufacture' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants raised the issue of the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department, contending that there was no evidence of intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the Collector did not give any finding on the limitation issue, and the appellants had also pleaded for abatement of duty in determining the assessable value of the goods.

Modvat Credit and Abatement of Duty:
The appellants sought the benefit of Modvat credit on inputs and abatement of duty from the sale price. They argued for consideration of their claim under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act and highlighted the Tribunal's decision in a related case. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider these aspects and provide the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to present their case before a final decision is made.