1997 (6) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand on steel structurals and cement blocks under Central Excise Rules.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Applicability of extended period for demand invocation.
4. Classification and exemption of cement blocks under Chapter Heading 68.
5. Classification of steel fabricated structurals under Chapter sub-heading 7308.90.
6. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and licensing requirements.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Original confirming a demand of Rs. 86,927.40 on steel structurals and cement blocks manufactured during a specific period under Central Excise Rules. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed under Rule 173Q. The appellant argued that the fabrication of steel items and cement blocks within their factory premises did not amount to manufacture. They cited a Tribunal decision supporting their stance. The appellant also claimed exemption for the cement blocks under a specific Notification issued by the Central Government.

The respondent contended that the appellant had manufactured cement blocks and steel structurals falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act without following required procedures, obtaining licenses, or filing necessary documents. The respondent urged for the dismissal of the appeal based on these grounds.

Upon considering the submissions, it was noted that the fabrication of steel structurals did not constitute manufacture, as per a previous Tribunal decision. Regarding the cement blocks, it was established that they were fabricated at the building site during a specified period and were covered under an exemption Notification issued by the Central Government. Consequently, the duty on the cement blocks was not levied, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the fabrication of steel structurals did not amount to manufacture and that the cement blocks were exempt from duty as they were fabricated at the site of construction during the specified period. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the demand and imposing a penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.