1999 (4) TMI 335 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the fabrication of clarifloculator bridges constitutes manufacture of goods liable to Central Excise duty.
2. Whether clarifloculator bridges are capable of being brought to the market and sold, making them liable for duty.
3. Whether the clarifloculator bridges are an integral part of the Water Treatment Plant and exempt from duty as immovable property.

Issue 1:
The judgment addresses the argument that the fabrication of clarifloculator bridges does not amount to manufacture of goods. The appellants contended that activities like cutting, slotting, and soldering of materials do not constitute manufacture. They relied on precedents stating that fabrication and erection of structural items may not amount to manufacturing activity. The Tribunal agreed, citing cases where similar activities were not considered manufacturing. The Tribunal found that the clarifloculator bridges were fabricated on-site and did not constitute marketable goods under Central Excise Act.

Issue 2:
The debate centered on whether clarifloculator bridges, being part of the Water Treatment Plant, were capable of being brought to the market and sold, thus attracting Central Excise duty. The Revenue argued that the bridges were manufactured, brought into existence, and fitted onto the plant, meeting the criteria for excisability. They cited precedents where goods affixed to the ground were still considered excisable. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that the bridges were integral parts of the plant, not intended for marketing, and thus not liable for duty.

Issue 3:
Regarding the status of clarifloculator bridges as immovable property exempt from duty, the appellants argued that the bridges were part of an immovable Water Treatment Plant and not marketable goods. They referenced judgments where items assembled, erected, and attached to the earth were deemed non-marketable. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the bridges were fabricated portions of the plant, not separate marketable goods. They distinguished cases involving assembly of machines from the fabrication of plant components, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants, setting aside the duty and penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the fabrication of clarifloculator bridges on-site does not amount to the manufacture of marketable goods liable for Central Excise duty. The bridges, being integral parts of the Water Treatment Plant and not intended for separate sale, are considered immovable property exempt from duty. The decision provides a detailed analysis of relevant precedents and legal principles to support the ruling in favor of the appellants.