2004 (11) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - imposition of penalties on the manufacture of doors, windows, frames of curtain walls, alucobond panels, and structural glazing - HELD THAT - It appears from the materials on record that the appellant is not a manufacturer as such of doors, windows or any such identified items. It is a civil contractor manufacturing curtain walls. The curtain wall is constructed on existing buildings. It is erected piecemeal on site. It is too big to be first manufactured in a factory and to be lifted and installed. And once constructed, it cannot be removed and re-fitted as such. The appellant first prepares aluminium sections by cutting aluminium angles, plates etc. to size, drilling holes etc. in their own premises or at construction site. That activity does not bring into existence any commercial products. Windows, doors etc. come into existence only upon installation along with other members. These are constructed piecemeal. Items do not come into existence as identifiable commercial products in a factory or other manufacturing premises. The appellant's contention that construction at site does not involve manufacture of excisable goods is covered by judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. 2002 (4) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suvidha Engineers (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi 2004 (3) TMI 307 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . The duty demand in the present case is not sustainable. In the absence of duty demand, penalties are also not justified. Thus, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any, to the appellant, after setting aside the impugned order.

Summary

Issues involved: Duty demand and imposition of penalties on the manufacture of doors, windows, frames of curtain walls, alucobond panels, and structural glazing by M/s. AGV Alfab Ltd.

Summary:
The appellant, a construction contractor, argued that their work of constructing aluminium doors, windows, curtain walls, etc., at various sites does not amount to the manufacture of goods as the constructions are not marketable products. They contended that the constructions at the site do not attract central excise duty, citing legal precedents. The appellant's process involved preparing aluminium sections, anodizing them, cutting to required lengths, and erecting them at the site as part of the building structure. The Tribunal noted that the appellant is a civil contractor manufacturing curtain walls, which are constructed on existing buildings piecemeal on-site and cannot be dismantled or removed once erected. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activities do not result in the creation of identifiable commercial products in a factory or manufacturing premises. Relying on legal judgments, the Tribunal held that the duty demand was not sustainable, and consequently, the penalties imposed were not justified. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

*(Separate judgment by S/Shri C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) and P.S. Bajaj, Member (J))*

*(Operative part of the order was already pronounced in open Court).*