2001 (1) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty on kilns/furnaces constructed at customers' premises.
2. Allegation of suppression of facts and wilful misstatement to evade duty payment.
3. Classification of kilns/furnaces under specific headings for duty imposition.
4. Applicability of longer limitation period due to alleged suppression.
5. Imposition of personal penalty and interest under Central Excise Act.
6. Interpretation of kilns/furnaces as immovable property and not goods.
7. Dispute regarding inspection clause in purchase orders.
8. Challenge to the order on limitation and applicability of penalty provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved the confirmation of duty on kilns/furnaces constructed at customers' premises during specific financial years. Central Excise officers conducted checks and issued a show cause notice alleging duty evasion. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, invoking a longer limitation period and imposing a penalty along with interest.

2. The appellant argued that the kilns/furnaces were tunnel kilns, immovable and not marketable goods under the Central Excise Act. They contended that the structures were not dismantlable and relied on Supreme Court precedents to support their claim that such immovable structures were not subject to duty.

3. The appellant further argued that fabricated steel items for the kilns' frames were not dutiable as they were below exemption limits and not considered goods under the Act. They cited relevant case laws to support their position.

4. The Commissioner's observation regarding the inspection clause in purchase orders was challenged, emphasizing that it pertained to equipment from external sources, not kilns/furnaces manufactured by the appellant.

5. The appellant contested the order on limitation, penalty imposition, and interest charges, citing the inapplicability of certain provisions retroactively.

6. The Tribunal found the basic dispute unclear regarding whether duty was demanded on entire kilns or parts manufactured by the appellant. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, indicating that duty on kilns/furnaces or bought-out parts would not be sustainable. The case was allowed for further clarification and review by the Commissioner.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further clarification and adjudication.