1999 (9) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Excisability of cast beam/girders
2. Benefit of Notification 59/90
3. Applicability of extended period of limitation

Excisability of cast beam/girders:
The case involved a dispute regarding the excisability of concrete beams and girders manufactured by M/s. UP State Bridge Corporation. The appellant argued that the goods were semi-finished and not complete, thus not excisable. However, the adjudicating authority found that the items were fully cast and manufactured at a specific location before being transported to the construction site. The tribunal held that the items were marketable goods liable to duty under CET sub-heading 6807.00, covering articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica, or similar materials. The tribunal rejected the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the items were indeed excisable goods.

Benefit of Notification 59/90:
The appellant sought the benefit of Notification 59/90, which provided exemption from duty for goods manufactured at the site of construction for use at that site. The tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was addressed and held that the word "site" encompassed the entire area of development by the relevant corporation. In the present case, the casting yard provided by Delhi Tourism Transportation Development Corporation to UP State Bridge Corporation was considered part of the construction site under the agreement. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to exemption from duty under the said notification for the cast beams/girders.

Applicability of extended period of limitation:
Regarding the extended period of limitation, the adjudicating authority found that the appellants willfully suppressed the fact of manufacturing concrete beams/girder sections to avoid duty payment. The tribunal agreed with this finding, stating that the extended period applied since the appellants did not obtain a license or register when manufacturing goods away from the project site. A distinction was made from a previous case where the extended period was not applicable because the company had disclosed their manufacturing practices. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the Department's decision to invoke the longer period of limitation.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalties, allowing the appeals based on the findings related to the benefit of Notification 59/90. The judgment clarified the excisability of the goods, the eligibility for exemption under the notification, and the application of the extended period of limitation, providing a comprehensive analysis of each issue involved in the case.