1998 (7) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty evasion on fabricated goods, classification of cranes as excisable goods, applicability of Notification No. 118/75, inclusion of erection charges in assessable value.

Analysis:
1. Duty Evasion on Fabricated Goods:
The appellants were alleged to have evaded duty on overhead cranes and cooling plants fabricated, assembled, and installed in their factory. The Additional Collector confirmed the duty on cranes but held that cooling plants were not excisable. The appeal challenged this decision.

2. Classification of Cranes as Excisable Goods:
The advocate argued that the cranes, operating on overhead rails and not mobile, did not classify as goods under Central Excise law. He also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 118/75, stating that the cranes were only engaged in transporting manufactured goods. However, the Tribunal clarified that Electric Overhead cranes were considered goods for excise duty purposes based on previous judgments.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 118/75:
The advocate contended that the cranes did not produce or process goods and thus should be exempt under the notification. However, the Tribunal referenced previous decisions indicating that such cranes were eligible for Modvat credit on capital goods, emphasizing the importance of their role in the production process.

4. Inclusion of Erection Charges in Assessable Value:
The Tribunal acknowledged that labor charges, including those for erection, had been added to the value of the cranes. Following a previous judgment, it was determined that certain charges related to erection should be excluded from the duty calculation. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Assistant Collector for reassessment of the duty leviable after excluding specific charges incurred for erection and commissioning.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that Electric Overhead cranes were excisable goods, denying the benefit of Notification No. 118/75. However, it directed a reassessment of duty by excluding certain erection charges from the calculation, in line with previous rulings. The decision provided clarity on the classification and taxation of such goods under Central Excise law.