2004 (5) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand, penalty, and interest for manufacturing and clearing storage tanks without payment of duty. Imposition of personal penalty on the Managing Director for facilitating duty evasion. Denial of benefit of exemptions under Notification No. 67/95 and Board Circular dated 15-1-2002.

Analysis:
1. The appeals contested duty demand, penalty, and interest imposed for manufacturing and clearing storage tanks without paying duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand against the company and imposed a personal penalty on the Managing Director for facilitating duty evasion.

2. The appellant argued that out of the 12 tanks in question, 10 were not excisable goods as they were permanently embedded at the fertilizer plant site and could not be removed. They claimed denial of exemptions under Notification No. 67/95 and a Board Circular. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal order granting similar exemptions.

3. The SDR supported the correctness of the impugned order, leading to a detailed examination of the case by the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal noted that the tanks were fabricated on-site and permanently embedded, making them immovable without dismantling. The fabrication process detailed by the appellants supported their argument that the tanks were not movable goods for sale.

5. The Adjudicating Authority differentiated two smaller tanks, claiming they could be transported and installed elsewhere. However, the Tribunal found that all tanks were fabricated and embedded similarly, making them immovable and eligible for exemptions under relevant notifications.

6. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand for the two smaller tanks was unjustified as they were also embedded permanently and not movable goods. Therefore, the duty demand for these tanks could not be sustained.

7. As the duty demand was set aside on the above grounds, the Tribunal did not delve into the availability of exemptions under Notification No. 67/95, as claimed by the appellants.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals of the appellants with any consequential relief as per the law.