1999 (2) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of Central Excise Duty on buildings, industrial plants, and structurals.
2. Whether the items in question are "goods" and thus subject to Central Excise Duty.
3. Marketability and manufacturing of structural items.

Summary:

Issue 1: Levy of Central Excise Duty on Buildings, Industrial Plants, and Structurals
The appeals concern the levy of Central Excise Duty on various constructions such as coal handling plants, factory buildings, power plants, electricity towers, and structural components used in these constructions. The appellants argued that these constructions are immovable properties and thus not "goods" subject to Central Excise Duty.

Issue 2: Whether the Items in Question are "Goods"
The appellants contended that the structural items involved are not new goods but merely processed materials like iron and steel plates, angles, etc., which are used in construction. They argued that these items do not have a separate identity as goods and are not marketable as such. The Revenue, however, maintained that identifiable new goods come into existence warranting the levy of Central Excise Duty, citing Tariff Heading 7308 which covers structures and parts of structures of iron or steel.

Issue 3: Marketability and Manufacturing of Structural Items
The appellants relied on several judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, which held that immovable structures are not liable to Central Excise Duty. The Revenue argued that the mention of an item in the Central Excise Tariff is sufficient for levying duty and cited judgments like Hemraj Govardhandas v. H.M. Dave AC to support their position.

Judgment:
The Tribunal examined the records and submissions from both sides. It was noted that the demands varied from the erection of industrial buildings to the preparation of structural materials. The Tribunal found that the appellants' activities did not constitute the manufacture of new goods. The processes involved, such as cleaning, cutting, drilling, and welding, did not bring new goods into existence. The Tribunal also referenced several judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, which reaffirmed that immovable structures are not "goods" and thus not subject to Central Excise Duty.

The Tribunal concluded that the items in question, being part of immovable structures, do not meet the criteria of "goods" as defined for excise purposes. The appeals were allowed, and the demands for Central Excise Duty were set aside. The Tribunal did not address incidental issues like the demands being time-barred, as the appeals were allowed on merits.